20021575 Ver 1_Complete File_20020930

V \? \S} S4y'..W?IYIVE :!' . ti 1140
o.•C? ¦ AwY C?m4 1147 O
' 1115
m 1,12
111 7
\' `' •J`'• Y?' 1113 1116
/ =/y-.W.,.. 1006 1142
\a \i • \? _v?I.IN CO `w. ?. 1309 1144
• 1382 ,306
s s?.
BRIDGE NO. 15
?? , 1311
1321 373
.t•
13
t' \ \ 1303 1417
?,1\N \ \y I 1319
\a 1322
N \I(J ? f
® 1417
1332
\ \ \tT .y
,304
?j' - (? 4 \g` N ?L• \? (? ?? $ ` \? i ? O /r? ,356
`, \N ??\ \g ? \? \$. 1330 •-`
\ ® `. - 1355 1354
\g 1335
\.p 1301
1337
S 1353
\? \? ! 1301
S A M,
1
i
NORTH CAROLINA DWARTHSN T OF TRANSPORTATION
DiVMN OF HKHMATS
PRon= DBVELOPXZNT AND
i• BNVIROHBNTAL ANALTM BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 15
NC 50 OVER YOUNGS SWAMP
SAMPSON COUNTY
B-3698
VICINITY MAP
° 1 2 3
GR FIGURE i
GRAPHIC SCALE. (MILES)
r ?d?.. SfAlE°'
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR July 28, 2000 SECRETARY
John E. Hennessy a,
Department of Environment and Natural Resources ?-
Division of Water Quality
i
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Dear Mr. Hennessy: 4?dATFCC ?? _1_11'r
SUBJECT: Sampson County
B-3698, Bridge No. 15 on NC 50 over Young's Swamp,
- --B-3699, Bridge No. 67 on NC 903 over Coharie Creek, and
B-3514, Bridge No. 100 on SR 1246 (Butler Island Bridge Road) over South River
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch of the Division of
Highways has begun studying proposed improvements to the subject bridge replacement
projects. The projects are included in the North Carolina Department of Transportation's 2000-
2006 Transportation Improvement Program and are scheduled for right-of-way in fiscal year
2002 and construction in fiscal year 2003.
Information regarding the projects is provided in the following paragraphs and the project
locations are shown on the attached maps.
Cade -kX2
B-3698, Bridge No. 15 on NC 50 over Young's Swamp, Sampson County c sw i8 - 7q- 19 -1
The existing two-lane structure was built in 1947, crosses over Young's Swamp and is
51 feet long and 24 feet wide.
The following alternatives will be studied for this bridge project:
Do Nothing
Rehabilitate the Existing Structure
Replace Existing Structure on Existing Location, temporary detour east side
- Replace Existing Structure on Existing Location, utilize off-site detour
If the structure is replaced at its existing location utilizing an off-site detour route, NC 50
will be closed to through traffic during the construction of the replacement structure.
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: WWW. DOH. DOT. STATE. NC. US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
k July 28, 2000
Page 2
B-3699, Bridge No. 67 on NC 903 over e-oharie Creek, Sampson County
C _S &., /6-68-1
The existing two-lane structure, constructed in 1961, crosses over Coharie Creek and is
180 feet long and 24.2 feet wide.
The following alternatives will be studied for this bridge project:
- Do Nothing
- Rehabilitate the Existing Structure
- Replace Existing Structure on Existing Location, temporary detour east side
- Replace Existing Structure on Existing Location, temporary detour west side
- Replace Existing Structure on Existing Location, utilize off-site detour
If the structure is replaced at its existing location utilizing an off-site detour route,
NC 903 will be closed to through traffic during the construction of the replacement structure.
Q 5w 16- bb - i2-- (o.s)
The existing two-lane structure, constructed in 1949, crosses over the South River and is
242 feet long and 24 feet wide.
The following alternatives will be studied for this bridge project:
Do Nothing
- Rehabilitate the Existing Structure
- Replace Existing Structure on Existing Location, temporary detour east side
- Replace Existing Structure on Existing Location, temporary detour west side
- Replace Existing Structure on New Location on East Side, maintain traffic
We would appreciate any information you have that would be helpful in evaluating
potential environmental impacts of the above projects. Any comments regarding potential
impacts to Emergency Response Units (fire, rescue, police, etc.) would be especially helpful. If
applicable, please identify any permits and/or approvals required by your agency.
Please note that there will be no formal interagency scoping meeting for this project.
This letter constitutes solicitation for scoping comments related to this project. It is desirable
that you respond by ugust'25 200% so that your comments can be used in the preparation of a
proposed Categorical Exclusion.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Drew Joyner, Project
Development Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], extension 269.
Sincerer.
r
..m."'r William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Attachments
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
August 8, 2000
MEMORANDUM
A74**
NCDENR
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager,
NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
Through: ,,Tohn Dorney, NC Division of Water Quality
From: John Hennes
Subject: Scoping comments on proposed Sampson County Bridge Replacement Projects:
B-3698, Bridge No. 15 on NC 50 over Young's Swamp,
B-3699, Bridge No. 67 on NC 903 over Great Coharie Creek, and
B-3514, Bridge No. 100 on SR 1246 (Butler Island Bridge Road) over South
River.
This memo is in reference to your correspondence dated 28 July 2000 (received August 4, 2000), in which
you requested scoping comments for the referenced bridge projects within the Cape Fear River Basin.
Preliminary analysis of the project reveals that Bridge No. 15 will span Young's Swamp. The DWQ index
number for the stream is 18-74-19-1. Bridge No. 67 traverses the Great Coharie Creek; the DWQ stream
index number is 18-68-1. Bridge No. 100 crosses the South River; the DWQ stream index number is 18-
68-12-(0.5). All of the streams are classified as C Swamp.
The Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider the following environmental issues for the
proposed project:
A. In planning documents and preliminary designs, NCDOT should consider the possibility that buffer
rules could be implemented in the future within the Cape Fear River Basin.
B. There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required,
it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental
documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted
that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance
of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
C. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road
closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ
requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
D. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
08/10/00
Page 2
E. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by
DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to streams in excess of 150 linear feet.
F. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will
be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
G. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. However, if the new structure is to be a culvert, it
should be countersunk, by a minimum of one foot, to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic
organisms passage through the crossing. Design and placement of culverts and other structures
including temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may result in
disequilibrium of wetlands or stream beds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream of the
above structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium shall be
maintained if requested in writing by DWQ. Additionally, when roadways, causeways or other fill
projects are constructed across FEMA-designated floodways or wetlands, openings such as culverts
or bridges must be provided to maintain the natural hydrology of the system as well as prevent
constriction of the floodway that may result in destabilization of streams or wetlands.
H. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
I. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) }, mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that
mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values. In accordance with. the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 211.0506
(h)(3) }, the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
K. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for storm water management. More specifically, storm water should not be permitted to
discharge directly into the creek. Instead, storm water should be designed to drain to a properly
designed storm water detention facility/apparatus.
L. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool,
their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior
to permit approval.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met
and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information,
please contact John Hennessy at [phone].
- Pc: Da id T'mpy, Corps of Engineers
=n ~'`rdl l . USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
File Copy
Central Files
KN u
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726

September 14, 2000 92000

Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
COPY FOR YOUR
INFORMATION
Thank you for your July 28, 2000 request for information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) on the potential environmental impacts of proposed bridge replacements
Sampson County, North Carolina. This report provides scoping information and is provided in
accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (16 U.S.C. 661-
667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-
1543). This report also serves as initial scoping comments to federal and state resource agencies
for use in their permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace the following
bridge structures:
1. B-3698 Bridge No. 15 on NC 50 over Young's Swamp;
--2: B-3699 Bridge No. 67 on NC 903 over Coharie Creek; and,
3. B-3514 Bridge No. 100 on SR 1246 over South River.
The following recommendations are provided to assist you in your planning process and to
facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we recommend that proposed
highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors, or
previously developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. Areas
exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed and region should be
1
avoided. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings
and/or occur on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures
that maintain natural water flows and hydraulic regimes without scouring, or impeding fish and
wildlife passage, should be employed. Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced
through wetland areas. Roadway embankments and fill areas should be stabilized by using
appropriate erosion control devices and techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in
sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps of the Roseboro, Dobbersville, and Ingold 7.5
Minute Quadrangles show wetland resources in the specific work areas. However, while the
NWI maps are useful for providing an overview of a given area, they should not be relied upon in
lieu of a detailed wetland delineation by trained personnel using an acceptable wetland
classification methodology. Therefore, in addition to the above guidance, we recommend that
the environmental documentation for this project include the following in sufficient detail to
facilitate a thorough review of the action.
1. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted by
filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory. Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987 o s of
Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps).
2. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made to
identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts. Opportunities to
protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation easement, should be
explored at the outset.
The document presents a number of scenarios for replacing each bridge, ranging from in-place to
relocation, with on-site and off-site detours. The Service recommends that each bridge be
replaced on the existing alignment with an off-site detour.
The enclosed list identifies the federally-listed endangered and threatened species, and Federal
Species of Concern (FSC) that are known to occur in Sampson County. The Service
recommends that habitat requirements for the listed species be compared with the available
habitats at the respective project sites. If suitable habitat is present within the action area of the
project, biological surveys for the listed species should be performed. Environmental
documentation that includes survey methodologies, results, and NCDOT's recommendations
based on those results, should be provided to this office for review and comment.
FSC's are those plant and animal species for which the Service remains concerned, but further
biological research and field study are needed to resolve the conservation status of these taxa.
Although FSC's receive no statutory protection under the ESA, we would encourage the NCDOT
to be alert to their potential presence, and to make every reasonable effort to conserve them if
found. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for information on

species under state protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Tom
McCartney at 919-856-4520, ext. 32.
Sincerely,
Garland B. Pardue
Ecological Services Supervisor
Enclosures
cc:
COE, Wilmington, NC (David Timpy)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessey)
NCDNR, Northside, NC (David Cox)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:09/14/00:919/856-4520 extension 32:\4brdgssc.otl
?a STA7E o
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
021575
September 23, 2002
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTENTION:
Mr. David Timpy
NCDOT Coordinator
SUBJECT: Nationwide Permit Application 23 for the proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 15 over Young's Swamp in
Sampson County, Division 3. Federal Aid No. BRSTP-
50(4), State Project No. 8.1281201; TIP No. B-3698.
Dear Sir:
Please find enclosed three copies of the CE document along with a project site map,
permit drawings, and roadway design plan sheets. Bridge No. 15 will be replaced with a
new bridge along the existing horizontal alignment. During construction, traffic will be
detoured along existing area roads.
PROPOSED IMPACTS
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
? r
SEA 3 ? [1f ,
t,
Wetlands associated with Young's Swamp (DWQ Index No. 18-74-19-1) Class C Sw,
will be impacted by the proposed project. Construction of the proposed project will
result in 0.066 acres mechanized clearing in wetlands. These impacts are depicted in the
attached drawings. The existing bridge does not have piers in Young's Swamp and the
proposed construction does not include plans for placement of piers in the Young's
swamp. Therefore, no surface water impacts are proposed. Best Management Practices
for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be followed. Therefore the bridge will be
removed without debris dropping into waters of the United States.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBsiTE: www. NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
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 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of March 07, 2002,
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service lists three federally protected species for
Sampson County: the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), red-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis), and pondberry (Lindera melissifolia). Only red-
cockaded woodpecker and pondberry are subject to the Section 7 consultation. As
documented in the attached CE, descriptions and biological conclusions of "No Effect"
were. given for these two species based on the absence of suitable habitat within the
project area. The biological conclusions for these species remain valid.
SUMMARY
Proposed rQje t viies are being processed by the Federal Highway Administration
as a prom?natic "Cl egorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR § 771.115(b).
The NCDOT, at these activities be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 (FR
number p`°`ages4 2020-2095; January 15, 2002). We -anticipate a 401 General
Certification number 3361 will apply to this project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H
.0501(a) we are providing two copies of this application to the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their
records.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need
` additional information please call Ms. Heather Montague at [phone].
Sincerely,
4/ d-1 AZi L-
V. Charles Burton, Ph.D., Manager
Office of the Natural Environment
VCB/hwm
w/attachment
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality (2 copies)
Mr. Garland Pardue, USFWS
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E.; Highway Design
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Allen Pope, Division 3 Engineer
Mr. Mason Herndon, Division Environmental Officer
Mr. Drew Joyner, P.E., PDEA Project Planning Engineer)
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington (Cover Letter Only)

O
v? . PROJECT 1
LOCATION.. 1
i 1
Pe 1
w _ ae 1
?L ? e 1
- Iz
? P
w
O
i to
a

VICINITY
MAPS
VICINITY MAP
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
SAMPSON COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1281201 (B-5698)
BRIDGE X15 OVER YOUNG'S
SWAMP ON NC 50
SHEET ` OF (P 7 / 11 / 02

Q
ti
? o

0
4

w

?z

CC)
x
o

i
yC

t

0M
?a
x 'b c<
Mo a o
y ?q M
(?
O'os1 g ea n
S y?
b w
o

00
z. °o cn Z
z°
y

? w
xx

?o o%
?? Z
° q
z U
04
Q v
r CJ?
? O
LEGEND
---r&B- WETLAND BOUNDARY
L
WETLAND
L
® DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
DENOTES FILL IN.
SURFACE WATER
DENOTES F1-1 L
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
I DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
DENOTES TEMPORARY
® FILL IN SURFACE WATER
PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
(DASHED LINES DENOTE
EXISTNG STRUCTURES)
• • DENOTES MECHANIZED I n_ ??J,
•••" •" • CLEARING
SINGLE TREE
-r- -t- FLOW DIRECTION
TB TOP OF BANK
WE --- EDGE OF WATER
- C - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- -F- - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
-- M PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG - - NATURAL GROUND
- -QL-- PROPERTY LINE
a
5
LIVE STAKES
BOULDER
COIR FIBER ROLLS
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
?f
WOODS LINE
¦ DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
VANE
JC)CL RIP RAP
- TDE - TEMP. DRAINAGE RIP RAP ENERGY
EASEMENT DISSIPATOR BASIN .zv -PDE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
-EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
----------- WATER SURFACE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
SAMPSON COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1281201 (B-8698)
BRIDGE '115 OVER YOUNG'S
SWAMP ON NC 50 AND
SHEET 3 OF (P 7 / 11 / 02

N) N)
N co
cn -? I I r
0 >? ( I ??
O
o ° I I c? D /7+00 +
m_ co mto
I -O D G7 W
I
D on _D I mmD ZE 0
?7N ?N Z? I OD
I I ohm Cp
-UN (/)-0 cm -D
4 °° I n Z
I ?D
> G-1
'v
-------?- -
PTSta.18+9936
•?• m 7-
NC I I I
NC xc)
z W D ?•
fir-
m I I DN
?D
Mm M N U) ? I O
?. W I o
D o 20+00
x D I I o 0
m I y
til Pd
-? m M, Y o n -vim Q
O M -n
# n
N nl
!J CA z c3c
6- 00 z.4po m? co
O ~
A
Z +? I-? p oFe
v a. 0 I I v ?` ? dVZ
p5:4
?°o v z JEST
±I
} v
Cyl -A
Q Q W
x
w
o,
Ul ,
Q
It
V
i ?
+ 1 p
I ?O
R
Q Q ?Q?
1 1 $tN
Q 3.6'
O In
N>
Q
+ $.
o I$
$m
o
tli
x y
vx 04
-jSG7 ?i * 1
z
CA z o
ZC zO?y o
114
is" z? gxx
to 9 %0
?
?o
Cr
? N W
<JI ?Jf ill
O
. , 4

0
'3
A
0
0

F CD

ET m

CL X

z

d
ro

d
c
00ro z
T
00 ;o
z
o0

N O
=r LC.
o
C O

? z
'
0

co
o.
0
-

4
to
(j)
N
?Nd
00 CD
8
N O
z

O Z (n
z
D
m
5
,
r

O T ?
O
O ? p
r O 7
rA
C
m -+
c

r
N
T
o v j =
?
n
N C
m

m Z
o v
? T
N r
Z m
o ?

C n
< D
_i
D

N ? (D?

3 N

Z
o?

T

T
D

D

O ,?` N
N C
.

W7\fP Ftol9S•dOSEPI-B-I\B-3698\Plans\ROWf05-1\63698.tsh
I ? 09/03/99
c
'PROJECT. 8.1281201 B-3698--j
11
a
o
?? R
m o
O I
22
O
17
-- f?
Q
'
o CD ?.
? D pn
v v

? ti
~~
moo

n n n u u u ?
C O °D
(a CA)
w a
C)
Q Z m
=
m
Z

r?r H

C
m
T 70
g
D D O
?

(m O p
16- y

N
O
?
'IV
?
II O
O O ?
ca A II
II O
Q J
m

A
s
n qq OOCu
s ?T? ?1?ti1?? you°o
''' "m
?c
A°i
o
T y e? C
-? J(] lA
0a m
m x

O ?
C

b
y y
?
x
b
I
v
tl
`ay
?n
a
all
x

b

O
?
O

to .h'b o1
y O
o + y?
N C gn
S%

fA ?
a N
;
o t /O

I cli
rol0 2
,. ,

°I
a
0
?
?
y
y
y
?n ? Rf
O

S
?L
O N

b

V?
P
b
S
n
V?

a
Q
I?
b?
a
r-? O
a
n
?z
A
ar
LA
a
b
n
0
cn
!? NCp
3
L
a
V
a
1?
I
F-n
v J
O
F-n
O
Fl l
11 F
O
?-
c
?T
^' 1
V
--------- - ---,. ------
----------------------- --------?
-
I i
9
rL ?

i s

O

A
A
o
rn
O

U

c

S

O p
M

1
I ?? a
o? ° Z
I ¦ rN
Z
I Ct
I
C
?o
y
mob
•
?I
Oil
a
?e
a
a
E
g
D

i
O

i

c

OY
O
7s A
y
C

O
1 1
rr

1 1 ?
CD cn
O
-
CD ?
D f
?
m

CO -

co 0
?/?
/
w co
N

00 I
?? U T
M0 n
z

0
00
+
:0 0 rn
n
v•
a
M 0

0 c
0M 0

CO z

.A 03
QD M

CLn 10
O 0 °
Z? ?a+
q
M
m i
O
N
Z
A
1,z"
O
A
c
z
0
O
Zs_O
F
EE
E
-? c C m
N m n
? ca
W N
N i
z°
<
? D m v
y amsv
Sm-1a a
v m a y
m y rav
i av
i av

T w
ZZ D
• y ?
9 yQ
j
9 DO
?° DG
A
9
D Z w v ?z9 yy r z az z
mr
O m Z
p A
- w?D<
qm <D D'o
m a oA<
< > ?DD
< 9 aD
<v DD
<N
M

m O T9 T 9

O O T 9

S• T V

SA
9TV
3I
T V
9S
m
I y 9
D >
p a•
D y
x D AO DO D O
y D m a ZZ mm D
y Z mm m x W, m x
O r m O y
m? TP 59H 70N 9+ ?+
D z > 9
v<ax oa Kax a• a• a•
-•? y
m ym-?
x
m D '+ - m y
x m? -?w
m iN
mq yo
mo
?
r
v m
m m D
m ?
ov o 0 o D
y ZTx wZ Tx
Z 71? T? 11 Dm <
m O
y S
D rAy m? ??
iN AD
OI" AS
O? A
OD 3
z y my
A Wmz TZ mm mea m -•I
2 m y
?•y 90 ??•y ?°Z ?•p ?•p
y •?
29T OH OTm Mm vma 'Oa A cli
M T 9 9-1 9T 9m
m m Km _
p c mm mm mm RI
Om Om ?0,9 OC O O Cf
m ? m m
00 O 20m O> OA Or r
O
m• c o ?+ il
a a M
i'Tm m 'O

O i 9MW
S n
C o
C
9 0 '? v!• ace a a
,n T
90m
m V
m O i
m K O m
?
SO1
m• o xm °m
o
a- c o
co o

e m

o m

0
y D
D D
O
_O
z
O
y
m

E A

E
mowo. ?
+
++ •
y
D
D C
z
D
'
O gq 0 0p N
O O O p O W
O
C
ooo? 6
=
mm am
O N
++ O
C
?
y
ao
00 i.i.
y 6

?
?.
F r
O O QY
y-ri ?1 c ? A
O y
r
O

O t
?¦

D m
- O
z O
?
T N 1 ?? ;E P
m
1 1
r r
1 ?
? °<
1 4t
0
Cl) 4n

DD
?
4 Q
co 437
+ + I
P O f- c
?
coo ?

rIF)

r ,? rF)
00 rn
0
OO O
Z g I ;? e
1 I
N + O I e

0
0 I
0 4
0

m o
Q
00
iEIP
O
v1
a
O
c
z
0

7ya

;

m

jb
I
CD
I
I
I
^f o I
,4 - i ,
-B^1\B-3698\Pl.-\
T ? a ? rnrn
V ? ? ? 2 O H
oa ?o n
^?N???ib? `ax C
a
r m
<
m "
ti
iD
mA
s
or
N Nx
O ?
m
,x
dvrQ??n0-5::, ^
F m?
n m_ ?r
o m

6 00C

N A-
D
c
n n n
N ? s~ s A?
rn ZA
?,
ca
In m 5
Z C
rr)
rri

?61
6

?00
1
2

Z T Z
O
O
O
° vm
N N

O
O

0C7 N
D_
Z
0
$A N
I
?„ m0 O
D
?
O C N
c
i m v
in O N
m I
a? n
°
? m
o

CD
I
?
0
°Om
x
N?'mms
m
,,yy c
NNNN?
S
15+00
°m
? NS
3 N >
.. G'1 D
~- •
9f .0
c
n? t°z
D N
-I.ti ON
MMx?_ Aa
m ti•
1 I ? 01
N
m oo
m
a im
~ °m
A ox
y D?
m ZC
am
o?
ON
ti
n ?D
9
a
NZ
?mN
rl H ..
C
n }
V p
p O
v
O
-i
M Iz \
r
r
Nmn •
?a
? „
w
N
tiD y
DN ,I
} I-+O ° f
D
O°
o X'`•r
30-
r S
? ?
rr ° x
O r
?:Fo -t?op-D
II II II II II It
0; L'4
a2
?o
I c'n
iI
ai
25+(,b
m '
md,
< v+ m
arD •
N mN N
N'-I +
(16 s9•bn W

z r

`

=
11
liz

T
4
.
9

8/17/99
N i ?N
N I N I N
= t I =
o I ? I o
19+00
m
_-0
n rn
< p<
"? N o
v
?F
C? N
(A
rD
O
m <
tZ-D

O<
m
p v
18+0q

t i 1
`?
Sampson County
NC 50
Bridge No. 15 over Young's Swamp
Federal-Aid Project No: BRSTP-50(4)
State Project No. 8.1281201 3
T.I.P. No. B-3698 LY W.
SEP 3 0 W
021575
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
2 ?
Wi i m D. Gilmore, P.E., RIGager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
113010)
AT
, ?,, E r a), A . ,- " : i:s
Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
k Division Administrator, FHWA
l '3 ? d l
DAT _
Sampson County
NC 50,
Bridge No. 15 over Young's Swamp
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-50(4)
State Project No. 8.1281201
T.I.P. No. B-3698
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
January 2001
Documentation Prepared By Ko & Associates, P.C.
4Lad, P.E. 6 r 4`• .,`?',, -
Project Manager - Ko & Associates
f.
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
Th as R. Kendig, AICP
Consultant Engineering ead
P.-j /?4 L-
Robert Andrew J ner, P.E.
Project Development Engineer
2
Project Commitments
Sampson County
NC 50 --
Bridge No. 15 over Young's Swamp
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-50(4)
State Project No. 8.1281201
T.I.P. No. B-3698
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit #23 Conditions, the General Nationwide
Permit Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State
Consistency Conditions, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for
Bridge Demolition and Removal, General Certifications, and Section 401 Conditions of
Certification, the following special commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
NONE
Categorical Exclusion
January, 2001
3
Sampson County
NC 50
Bridge No. 15 over Young's Swamp
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-50(4)
State Project No. 8.1281201
T.I.P. No. B-3698
Bridge No. 15 is located in Sampson County on NC 50 where it crosses Young's
Swamp. Bridge No. 15 is included in the Draft North Carolina Department of
Transportation 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement Program and is part of the
Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No
substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal
"Categorical Exclusion".
1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 15 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 2 at its existing location
with a new structure approximately 100 feet (30.5 meters) long with a clear roadway
width of 28 feet (8.4 meters). The immediate approaches will be 22 feet (6.6 meters) of
pavement with 6-foot (1.8-meter) shoulders. During the construction period, the existing
bridge will be closed and traffic will be routed along existing roads. The estimated cost
for the recommended proposed improvement is $762,500. The current estimated cost
of the project, as shown in the Draft NCDOT 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement
Program, is $ 305,000 including $ 30,000 for right-of-way and $ 275,000 for
construction.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
NC 50 crosses over Young's Swamp approximately 5 miles (8.1 kilometers) northwest
of Faison in Sampson County. Development in the immediate area is sparse with a
small cluster of mobile homes and outbuildings on the extended north approach and a
single mobile home on the south approach. This development will not be impacted by
any of the studied alternatives. NC 50 is classified as a Rural Major Collector in the
Statewide Functional Classification System.
NC 50 has a current pavement width of 19 feet (5.7 meters) with 8-foot (2.4-meter)
grass shoulders in the area of the bridge. The roadway approaches are a tangent
section with a sag vertical alignment in the proximity of the existing structure. There is a
slight right curve approaching the bridge from the south and a sharp left curve leaving
the bridge continuing north. The curve to the north will not be affected by any
4
C
replacement alternative. Sight distance is good both to the north and to the south.
The traffic volumes on NC 50 at Young's Swamp are currently 500 vehicles per day
(vpd) and are projected to be 1100 vpd for the design year 2025. The volumes include
an estimated 4 % truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 4 % dual-tired (DT) vehicles.
The posted speed limit is 55 mph (88.5 kmph) in the vicinity of the bridge.
Bridge No. 15, as shown in Figure 2, has an overall length of 51 feet (15.5 meters) and
a clear roadway width of 24 feet (7.2 meters). The existing two-lane bridge has a v
reinforced concrete deck on reinforced concrete girders supported by reinforced
concrete caps on timber piles at various centers. The structure was constructed in
1947. The current posted weight limit is 29 tons (26.3 metric tons) for single unit
vehicles and 36 tons (32.65 metric tons) for truck-tractor semi-trailer vehicles. The
bridge has a sufficiency rating of 37.9 compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure
and approaches. Bridge No. 15 has a bed-to-crown distance of approximately 12 feet
(3.7 meters).
One accident was reported in the vicinity of the bridge during the period from April 1,
1997 to March 31, 2000. The incident involved a single vehicle which ran off the road in
the curve on the north approach. Damage to the vehicle was estimated at $ 6000. The
accident rate is 400 accidents per 100 million vehicle miles of travel (248.56 accidents
per 100 million vehicle kilometers) compared to the statewide average of 228.87
accidents per 100 MVM of travel (142.22 accidents per 100 MVK) for NC numbered
Rural Major Collector routes (2 lanes undivided).
There are no utilities attached to the bridge nor. are there any apparent utilities in the
proximity of Bridge No. 15. Utility conflicts should be considered as none.
Public school buses cross the present bridge 6 times per day.
III. ALTERNATIVES

Given the wide, flat, black-water swamp characteristics of Young's Swamp and the
existing tangent section, new location alternates are not considered feasible or prudent. T
Based on preliminary hydrographic studies, the most feasible alternative is to replace
the existing bridge structure with a new structure at its existing alignment. The studied
alternates were (1) to replace the structure at existing location with a temporary detour
on the east side and (2) to replace the structure at existing location closing NC 50 and
utilizing an off-site detour. The investigation of the temporary detour alternative is
compared with the off-site detour alternative. The posted speed limit is 55 mph (88.5
kmph) and the corresponding design speed is 60 mph (100 kmph). With a 60 mph (100
kmph) design speed, the existing grade at the crossing will be raised 2-3 feet (0.6-0.9
meters).
The recommended replacement structure is a new bridge structure at the existing
5
location, approximately 100 feet (30.5 meters) long with a 28-foot (8.4-meter) clear
roadway width. The grade of the roadway over the new structure will be approximately
3 feet (0.9 meters) above the grade of the existing bridge. The approaches to the
bridge will have a pavement width of 22 feet (6.6 meters) with 6-foot (1.8-meter)
grassed shoulders. The design speed will be 60 mph (100 kmph). The alternates are
shown in Figures 3 and 4.
The No-Build or "do-nothing" alternate was also considered but this choice would
eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not a desirable alternative due to
the traffic service provided by NC 50.
Investigation of the existing structure by the NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates
that rehabilitation of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated
condition. The existing bridge is classified as structurally deficient.
6
C
IV. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternatives studied, based on current prices, are shown in j
the following table:
Alternate 1
With On-site
Detour East Side Alternate 2
With Off-site
Detour
Structure Removal $10,640 $10,640
Structure $201,600 $201,600
Roadway Approaches $226,705 $226,705
Mobilization and Miscellaneous $201,055 $201,055
Engineering and Contingencies- _ $110,000 $110,000
Temporary Detour $450,000 $0
SUBTOTAL $1,200,000 $750,000
Ri ht-of-Wa /Const. Ease./Util. $17,500 $12,500
TOTAL $1,217,000 $762,500

1
The above estimates are based on functional design plane; therefore, 45 % has been
included for miscellaneous items and contractor mobilization, and 15 % for engineering
and contingencies.
V. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
The recommended alternative is Alternate 2; see Figure 4. The replacement structure a _
new bridge structure at the existing location, approximately 100 feet (30.5 meters) long
with a 28-foot (8.4-meter) clear roadway width. The grade of the roadway over the new
structure will be approximately 3 feet (0.9 meters) above the grade of the existing
7

bridge. The approaches to the bridge will have a pavement width of 22 feet (6.6
meters) with 6-foot (1.8-meter) grassed shoulders. The design speed will be 60 mph
(100 kmph). NC 50 at Bridge No. 15 will be closed to traffic during the construction
period for the replacement bridge (approximately 12 months). During the construction
period, traffic will be routed along existing roads. The detour alternates are shown in
Figure 5.
The Division Office concurs with the recommended improvements.
VI. TRAFFIC DETOUR
An on-site detour east of the existing bridge was investigated. The estimated
construction cost of the temporary detour is $ 450,000. The Environmental Officer
(Division Three, NCDOT) expressed concerns that the temporary fill for an on-site
detour could cause some long-term impairment to the existing wetlands. He
recommended that if an on-site detour alternative was selected that the potential
impacts to the wetlands be addressed and that consideration be given to the temporary
structure bridging the wetland.
The feasibility of road closure with an off-site detour was also investigated (see Figure
5). The studied off-site detour routes included using sections of SR 1729 (Bill Waters
Road), SR 1725 (Giddensville Road), SR 1731 (Harvey Lewis Road), SR 1757
(Margaret Road) and NC 50 on either side of the existing structure. The possible detour
routes are characterized by 18 to 20-foot (5.4 to 6-meter) bituminous surface treated
two-lane roadways with 6 to 8-foot (1.8 to 2.4-meter) grassed shoulders. The implied
speed limit is 55 mph (88.5 kmph) in lieu of-specified postings for all potential segments
of the detour. There are no structures on any of the possible detour route segments -
with posted weight restrictions. There is a pipe under SR 1725.
The traffic volume inventory in the project study area was not robust enough to develop
concrete origin-destination patterns. The current traffic volume in the vicinity of the
Bridge No. 15 is very light (500 vpd). The 2025 traffic volume is projected to be 11.00
vpd. 1-40, located approximately 3-4 miles (4.8-6.4 kilometers) southwest of NC 50,
generally parallels NC 50 through the project area. Regional and long-haul traffic in the
project study area would most likely use the 1-40 corridor. It can be estimated that most
of the travel on NC 50 is generated by the surrounding rural residential and farm
development with origin or destination to the employment centers in Faison, Calypso,
and Mount Olive. Several different likely travel patterns were developed using different
combinations of segments of the above listed secondary road system. The analysis
yielded an estimated increase of 1610 daily vehicle miles of travel for using an off-site
detour and closing NC 50 during construction of a replacement bridge. For the 12-
month construction period, the off-site detour would have an estimated road user cost of
$199,000 (at 32.5 cents per vehicle-mile). A benefit cost ratio of 0.44, comparing the
on-site detour cost versus the additional road user cost, indicates justification to provide
8
C
an off-site detour. The Division Office indicated their concurrence with the
recommendation for road closure with an off-site detour. Their judgement is predicated
on the local nature of the traffic flow in the project area and the potential to impact to the
surrounding wetlands with an on-site detour. 3
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
Methods
Materials and literature in support of this investigation have been derived from a number ;
of sources including applicable U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic mapping
(Dobbersville, NC 7.5 minute quadrangle), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping (Dobbersville, NC 7.5 minute quadrangle),
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS; formerly the Soils Conservation
Service) soils mapping (USDA 1984), and recent aerial photography (scale 1:1200)
furnished by Ko and Associates, Inc.
The site was visited on July 17, 2000. The study corridor was walked and visually
surveyed for significant features. For purposes of this evaluation, the study corridor was
assumed to be approximately 1000 feet (304.8 meters) in length and -300 feet (91.5
meters) in width. Impact calculations are based on cut-fill boundaries, which are
approximately 70 feet (21.4 meters) in width. Actual impacts will be limited to cut-fill
boundaries and are expected to be less than those shown for right-of-way. Special
concerns evaluated in the field include 1) potential protected species habitat, and 2)
wetlands and water quality protection in Youngs Swamp. The field work for this investigation was conducted by EcoScience Corporation
biologists Sandy Smith, Ward Elis, Matthew Cusack, and Shay Garriock.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When
appropriate, community classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. T
Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968). Jurisdictional
areas were evaluated using the three-parameter approach (hydrophytic vegetation,
hydric soils, wetland hydrology) following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were characterized according
to a classification scheme established by Cowardin et a!. (1979). Aquatic and
terrestrial wildlife habitat requirements and distributions were determined by supportive
literature (Martof et al. 1980; Potter et al. 1980; Webster et al. 1985; Menhinick 1991;
Hamel 1992; Palmer and Braswell 1995; Rohde et al. 1994). Water quality information -
for area streams and tributaries was derived from available sources (DWQ 1998, 2000).
Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
9
T
i.
The most current FWS listing of federal-protected species with ranges extending into
Sampson County (June 16, 2000) was obtained prior to initiation of the field
investigation. In addition, NHP records documenting presence of federal- or state-listed
species were consulted before commencing field investigations.
Project Area
Bridge No.15 is located approximately 6 miles (9.7 kilometers) west of the township of
Mount Olive, NC, in a rural area of Sampson County. The study corridor is located
along NC 50 at Youngs Swamp, and is nested between SR 1725 approximately 0.7 mile
(1.1 kilometers) to the northwest and SR 1728 approximately 0.6 mile (1.0 kilometer) to
the southeast (Figure 1). The area spans the channel and banks of Youngs Swamp,
the associated floodplain, and side-slopes. The study corridor primarily supports
secondary growth forest; dense undergrowth and a poorly developed tree canopy
indicate timber harvesting and/or storm damage in the last 10-15 years.
Physioaraphv and Soils
The study corridor is underlain by the Cretaceous, Black Creek geologic formation
within the Coastal Plain physiographic province of North Carolina. Topography is
characterized as gently undulating with wide floodplains and broad, flat interstream
divides. Elevations in the study corridor are relatively level and average approximately
120 feet (36.6 meters) National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) (USGS Dobbersville,
NC quadrangle). Soil mapping units underlying the Youngs Swamp corridor are
Johnston Loam (Cumulic Humaquepts) and Marvyn loamy sand (Typic Hapludults).
The Johnston Loam series occurs on narrow to moderately broad floodplains and is
prone to frequent flooding for long periods. Johnston soils are mapped in the entire
Youngs Swamp floodplain and the side-slopes north of Bridge No.15. This soil is
poorly drained, and permeability is moderately rapid to rapid (USDA 1984). Johnston
soils are hydric in Sampson County (NRCS 1997). The Marvyn series occurs on short
side-slopes in pronounced drainage ways on uplands. Marvyn soils are mapped on the
slide-slope south of Bridge No.15. This soil is well-drained and permeability is
moderate (USDA 1984). Marvyn soils are non-hydric In Sampson County (NRCS
1997).
WATER RESOURCES
Waters Impacted
The study corridor is located within sub-basin 03-06-22 of the Cape Fear River Basin
(DWQ 2000). This area is part of USGS Hydrologic Unit 03030007 of the South
Atlantic-Gulf Region. Youngs Swamp has been assigned Stream Index Number 18-74-
19-1 by the N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ 1998). The nearest stream to Youngs
10
C
Swamp (according to USGS mapping) is Goshen Swamp, a tributary to the Northeast
Cape Fear River approximately 1.2 miles (1.9. kilometers) downstream from the study
corridor. The structure targeted for replacement spans Youngs Swamp with no direct
involvement of additional streams or tributaries. --
Stream Characteristics
Youngs Swamp is a well-defined Coastal Plain river with moderate flow over sandy
substrate. At Bridge No.15, Youngs Swamp is approximately 30 feet (9.2 meters) in
width and 5 feet (1.5 meters) above water level. During field investigations water clarity
was good, water depth was approximately 2 feet (0.6 meters), and flow velocity was
slow. Downstream of the bridge (northeast), Youngs Swamp has steep banks
approximately 3 feet (0.9 meters) above water level, while upstream of the bridge
(southwest), the banks are gradually sloping and approximately 0.5 feet (0.2 meters)
above water level. The associated floodplain extends throughout most of the study
corridor, portions of which have hydric soils, support hydrophytic vegetation, and show
signs of occasional flooding and pooling.
Best Usage Classifications and Water Quality
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the
existing or contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the
basin. A best usage classification of C Sw has been assigned to Youngs Swamp (DWQ
2000). The designation C denotes that appropriate uses include aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
Secondary recreation refers to human body contact with waters on an infrequent or
incidental basis. The Sw designation refers to swamp waters that are naturally more
acidic and lower in dissolved oxygen levels. No designated High Quality Waters
(HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), Water Supply I (WS-1), or Water Supply
II (WS-11) waters occur within one mile of the study corridor (DWQ 2000).
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) (previously known as the Division of
Environmental Management, Water Quality Section [DEM]) has initiated a whole basin
approach to water quality management for the 17 major river basins within the state.
Water quality for the proposed study corridor is summarized in the Cape Fear River
basinwide water quality plan (DWQ 2000). Youngs Swamp is not rated for designated
uses; however, Hall's Marsh, a tributary of Goshen Swamp 8 miles (12.9 kilometers)
east of the study corridor, has a use support rating of Fully Supporting. The nearest
Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Station is located 20 miles (32.2 kilometers) east of
the study corridor on Northeast Cape Fear River at NC 11/903. Northeast Cape Fear
River has a bioclassification rating of Good-Fair at this location (DWQ 2000).
This sub-basin (03-06-22) supports three major point-source dischargers and 11 minor
dischargers. Total permitted flow for the three major dischargers is 8 million gallons per
11
I
day (MGD) (30.3 megaliters per day [MLD]), and total permitted flow for the 11 minor
dischargers is 2.6 MGD (9.9 MLD) (DWQ 2000). Major non-point sources of pollution
for the entire Cape Fear River Basin are agriculture, urban, construction, forestry,
mining, onsite wastewater disposal, solid waste disposal, and atmospheric deposition
(DWQ 2000). Sedimentation and nutrient inputs are major problems associated with
non-point source discharges and often result in fecal coliform, heavy metals, oil from
roads and parking lots, and increased nutrient levels in surface waters.
Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
General Impacts
Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized
through implementation of a stringent erosion control schedule and the use of best
management practices. The contractor will follow contract specifications pertaining to
erosion control measures as outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article 107-13
entitled "Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution" (NCDOT, Specifications for Roads
and Structures). These measures include the following actions: use of dikes, berms,
silt basins, and other containment measures to control runoff, elimination of construction
staging areas in floodplains and adjacent to waterways; re-seeding of herbaceous cover
on disturbed sites; management of chemicals (herbicides, pesticides, de-icing
compounds) with potential negative impacts on water quality; and avoidance of direct
discharges into steams by catch basins and roadside vegetation.
The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of pre-project stream flows
in Youngs Swamp, thereby protecting the integrity of this waterway. Long-term impacts
to adjacent reaches resulting from construction are expected to be negligible. In order
to minimize impacts to water resources, NCDOT Best Management Practices (BMPs)
for the Protection of-Surface Waters will be strictly enforced during the entire life of the
project.
Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
There is little potential for components of the bridge to be dropped into "waters of the
United States". The temporary fill potential is limited to the 39-foot (11.9-meter) span of
the bridge that is suspended over the water surface and is estimated to be 17.2 cubic
yards (13.2 cubic meters) of bridge material. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for
Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMP-BDR) must be applied for the removal of this
bridge and no temporary fill is anticipated.
12

BIOTIC RESOURCES
Plant Communities
Two distinct plant communities were identified within the study corridor: bottomland
hardwood forest and roadside/disturbed land. These plant communities are described
below.
Bottomland Hardwood Forest - Bottomland hardwood forest occurs on floodplains,
side-slopes, and along stream margins of Youngs Swamp. This community represents
approximately 75 percent of the total study corridor area. Canopy species include water 3
oak (Quercus nigra), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), black willow (Salix
nigra), swamp tupelo (Nyssa sylvatica var. Mora), sweetgum (Ligiudambar styraciflua),
tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and red maple (Acer rubrum). The sub-
canopy/shrub community consists of sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), mulberry
(Morus rubra), cane (Arundinaria gigantea), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), slippery
elm (U/mus rubrum), American dogwood, (Comus florida), ironwood (Carpinus
caroliniana), and American holly (Ilex opaca). Herbaceous vegetation includes lizard's
tail (Saururus cemuus) and woodland oats (Chasmanthium laxum). Portions of the
forest floor support dense stands of vines such as green briar (Smilax rotundifolia), wild
grape (Vitis spp.), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), blackberry (Rubus sp.), and
pepper vine (Appelopsis arborea).
Roadside/disturbed Land - Roadside/disturbed. land is defined as the present roadside
margins and contains the following vegetative species: microstegium (Microstegium
vimineum), English plantain (P/antago lanceolata), broom panic grass (Qicanthelium
scoparium), trumpet creeper, poisin ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), dayflower
(Commelina sp.), and horse nettle (Solanum carolinense).
Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Plant Communities
Plant community areas are estimated based on the amount of each.plant community
present within the projected right-of way. Permanent impacts are considered to be
those impacts that occur within the cut-fill limits. Temporary impacts are those impacts
that occur between cut-fill limits and the proposed right-of-way. A summary of potential
plant community impacts is presented in Table 1.
13
Table 1.
Area (acres [hectares]) of Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Plant Communities
PLANT Alternate 1 Alternate 2
COMMUNITY
Temporary Permanent Total Temporary Permanent Total
Bottomland HW 1.35 0.58 1.93 0.87 0.58 1
45
Forest (0.55) (0.23) (0.78) (0.35) (0.23) .
(0.58)
Roadside/disturbed --- 0.55 0.55 --- 0.55 0
55
Land (0.22) (0.22) (0.22) .
(0.22)
Total: 1.35 1.13 2.48 0.87 1.13 2.00
(0.55) (0.46) (1.00) (0.35) (0.46) (0.80)
Permanent plant community impacts resulting from bridge replacements are generally
restricted to narrow strips adjacent to the existing bridge and roadway approach
segments. Very little area of natural plant community is anticipated to be impacted by
the proposed project. Based on the proposed right-of-ways, impacts to bottomland
hardwood forest are greater for Alternate 1 because of the temporary bridge alignment
and associated filling.
From an ecological perspective, impacts of upgrading existing road facilities are
minimal. No additional fragmentation of plant communities will be created, as the
project will result only in alteration of community boundaries.
Wildlife
Terrestrial
Mammal signs (tracks, scat, etc.) within the study corridor were limited to the remains of
two beaver (Castor canadensis). Other opportunistic and characteristic species which
are expected to frequent woodlands and woodland edges are eastern cottontail
(Sylvilagus floridanus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), white tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), raccoon (Procyon
lotor), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), mink (Mustela vison), Norway rat (Rattus
norvegicus), house mouse (Mus musculus), and golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttall?).
Birds observed within or adjacent to the corridor were Carolina wren (Thryothorus
ludovicianus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), prothonotory warbler (Protonotaria
citrea) yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila
caerulea), Acadian flycatcher (Empidonax virescens), white-eyed vireo (Vireo griseus),
yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens),_red shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), red-tailed
hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), American robin (Turdus migratorius), and indigo bunting
(Passerina cyanea). Incidentally, a colony of barn swallows (Hirundo rustica) was
14
C
observed nesting beneath the bridge.
Two terrestrial reptile species, rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus) and a skink
(Eumeces sp.), were observed within the study corridor. Other terrestrial reptiles and Y
amphibians which may occur within the study corridor include eastern box turtle
(Terrapene carolina), Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis), eastern fence lizard
(Sceloporus undulatus), broadhead skink (Eumeces laticeps), worm snake (Carphophis
amoenus), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), eastern kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula), brown
snake (Storeria dekayi), eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), copperhead
(Agkistrodon contortrix), green treefrog (Hyla cineria), gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor),
southern toad (Bufo terrestris), and slimy salamander (Plethodon cylindraceus). ,
Aquatic
Limited surveys resulted in no documentation of aquatic reptiles or amphibians in the
study corridor. Youngs Swamp provides suitable habitat for aquatic and semi-aquatic
reptiles and amphibians. Aquatic or semi-aquatic reptiles and amphibians which may
occur within the study corridor include snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), mud turtle
(Kinostemon subrubrum), yellowbelly slider (Trachemys scripta), river cooter
(Pseudemys concinna), brown water snake (Nerodia taxispilota), redbelly water snake
(Nerodia erythrogaster), cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus), marbled salamander
(Ambystoma opacum), southern dusky salamander (Desmognathus auriculatus), mud
salamander (Pseudotriton montanus), two-toed amphiuma (Amphiuma means), green
frog (Rana clamitans), and southern cricket frog (Acris gryllus).
No sampling was undertaken in Youngs Swamp to determine fishery potential. Visual '
surveys of Youngs Swamp did not reveal the presence of fish, molluscan fauna, or other
aquatic life; however, fish species which may be present within the Youngs Swamp
include the golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), bluehead chub (Nocomis
leptocephalus), eastern mudminnow (Umbra pygmaea), margined madtom (Noturus
insignis), tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi), and yellow bullhead (Ameiurus
natalis). Potential game fish which may be present within the study corridor include
redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus) and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides).
a
Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, the proposed bridge
replacement will not result in significant loss or displacement of known terrestrial animal
populations. Construction during breeding season would potentially disrupt a breeding
colony of barn swallows. No substantial habitat fragmentation is expected since most
improvements will be restricted to existing roadside margins. Construction noise and
associated disturbances will have short-term impacts on avifauna and migratory wildlife
movement patterns. However, long-term impacts are expected to be negligible.
Potential down-stream impacts to aquatic habitat will be avoided by bridging the
15

systems to maintain regular flow and stream integrity. Short-term impacts associated
with turbidity and suspended sediments will affect benthic populations. Temporary
impacts to downstream habitat from increased sediment during construction will be
minimized by the implementation of stringent erosion control measures.
SPECIAL TOPICS
Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the embankments of Youngs Swamp are subject to jurisdictional
consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as waters of the United States
(33 CFR section 328.3). NWI mapping indicates that Youngs Swamp exhibits
characteristics of a palustrine, broad-leaved, deciduous forest system that is seasonally
flooded (PF01 C) (Cowardin et al. 1979). Field investigations verify that, within the
study corridor, Youngs Swamp is a forested palustrine system; however, these wetlands
include a lower perennial riverine system with and unconsolidated, sandy bottom that is
permanently flooded (R2UB2h) (Cowardin et a!. 1979).
Wetlands adjacent the riverine portions of Youngs Swamp are subject to jurisdictional
consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as waters of the United States
(33 CFR section 328.3). These areas are defined by the presence of three primary
criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of hydrology at or near the
surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season (DOA 1987). These wetlands
satisfy the three-parameter approach outlined. by the COE (DOA 1987). Wetland
vegetation species are black willow, swamp tupelo, and lizard's tail. These plants are
growing on Johnston soils which exhibit values, chromas, and mottles characteristic of
hydric soils. Evidence of wetland hydrology includes surface drainage patterns, water-
stained leaves, and ground saturation near the surface. The area of wetland within the
alternative right-of-way and the area and linear distance of stream shaded by proposed
bridging are shown in Table 2.
16
C
Table 2.
Potential Wetland and Open Water Impacts
(area and linear distance of stream impacts are from bridge shading)
Jurisdictional Type Mnemaie -1 Alternate 2
Temporary Permanent Total Temporary Permanent Total
Wetland
(acres [hectares]) 0.60
(0.24) 0.27
(0.11) 0.87
(0.35) 0.24 0.27
(0.10) (0.11) 0.51
(0
21)
Stream Area
(acres [hectares]) 0.01
(.004) 0.01
(.004) 0.02
(
008) --- 0.10
0
041 .
0.10

Stream Linear Distance
24.0
24.0 .
48.0 (
.
)
- 24
0
24 041)
(feet [meters]) (9.7) (9.7) (19.4) .
(9 71 is 71
Alternate 1 impacts entail widening of bridge approaches and construction of a
temporary detour through vegetated wetlands. Alternate 2 impacts are limited to
widening of bridge approaches. Impacts to vegetated wetlands will be restricted to
narrow strips adjacent to the existing and temporary alignments. Permanent Impacts to
the stream are limited to bridge shading; bridging will not result in fill or dredging of
wetlands/waters of the United States, and encroachment into the stream will be
avoided. Upon completion of construction, temporary Impacts associated with
construction activities and temporary alignment will be restored to pre-project
conditions.
There is little potential that components of the existing bridge may be dropped into
waters of the United States during construction. Therefore, no temporary fill is expected
to result from bridge removal. This project can be classified as Case 3, where there are
no special restrictions other than those outlined in Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters. NCDOT will coordinate with the various resource
agencies during project planning to ensure that all concerns regarding bridge demolition
are resolved.
Permits
This project is being processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines. Nationwide Permit (NWP) #23 (61 FR 65874,
65916; December 13, 1996) has been issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) for CEs due to expected minimal impact. DWQ has issued a General 401 Water
Quality Certification for NWP #23. However, use of this permit will require written notice
to DWQ. In the event that NWP #23 will not suffice, minor impacts attributed to bridging
and associated approach improvements are expected to qualify under General Bridge
Permit 031 issued by the Wilmington COE District. Notification to the Wilmington COE
office is required if this general permit is utilized.
17

a

Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not proposed for this project due to the limited nature of
project impacts. However, utilization of BMPs is recommended in an effort to minimize
impacts. Temporary impacts to floodplains associated with construction activities could
be mitigated by replanting disturbed areas with native wetland species and removal of
temporary fill material upon project completion. Fill or alteration of more than 150 linear
feet (45.8 linear meters) of stream may require compensatory mitigation in accordance
with 15 NCAC 2H .0506(h). A final determination regarding mitigation rests with the
COE and DWQ.
Protected Species
Federal-Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Threatened
due to Similarity of Appearance (T [S/A]), or officially Proposed (P) for such listing are
protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.). The term "Endangered Species" is defined as "any species which is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range", and the term
"Threatened Species" is defined as "any species which is likely to become an
Endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range" (16 U.S.C. 1532). The term "Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance"
is defined as a species which is not "Endangered" or "Threatened", but "closely
resembles an Endangered or Threatened species" (16 U.S.C. 1532). Federal-
protected species listed for Sampson County are presented in Table 3.
Table 3.
Federal-Protected Species listed for Sampson County (June 16, 2000 FWS list).
Common Name Scientific Name Status
American alligator
Red-cockaded woodpecker Alligator mississippiensis
Picoides borealis T (S/A)
E
Pondberry Lindera melissifolia E
American Alligator - American alligator is listed as threatened based on the similarity
in appearance to other Federal-listed crocodilians; however, there are no other
crocodilians within North Carolina. American alligators can be found in a variety of
freshwater to estuarine aquatic habitats including swamp forests, marshes, large
streams and canals, and ponds and lakes. NHP records indicate that American
alligators have not been documented within 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor.
T S/A species are not subject to Section 7 consultation and a biological conclusion is
not required. However, this project is not expected to affect the American alligator.
18
f
Red-cockaded Woodpecker - This small woodpecker (7 to 8.5 inches [17.8 to 21.6
centimeters] long) has a black head, prominent white cheek patch, and black-and-white
barred back. Males often have red markings (cockades) behind the eye, but the --L
cockades may be absent or difficult to see (Potter et aL 1980). Primary habitat consists
of mature to over-mature southern pine forests dominated by loblolly (Pious taeda),
long-leaf (P. palustris), slash (P. ellioth), and pond (P. serotina) pines (Thompson and
Baker 1971). Nest cavities are constructed in the heartwood of living pines, generally
older than 70 years, that have been infected with red-heart disease. Nest cavity trees
tend to occur in clusters, which are referred to as colonies (FWS 1985). The
woodpecker drills holes into the bark around the cavity entrance, resulting in a shiny, ,
resinous buildup around the entrance that allows for easy detection of active nest trees.
Pine flatwoods or pine-dominated savannas which have been maintained by frequent
natural fires serve as ideal nesting and foraging sites for this woodpecker.
Development of a thick understory may result in abandonment of cavity trees. Site plant
communities are 1) roadside/disturbed, and 2) bottomland forest dominated by 10-20
year old hardwoods. Neither of these plant communities support red-cockaded
woodpecker nesting or foraging habitat. Suitable nesting habitat does not occur within 1
mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor, and NHP records do not document the
occurrence of red-cockaded woodpeckers in the vicinity of the study corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: The study corridor contains no suitable habitat
for red-cockaded woodpecker foraging and nesting. There is no nesting habitat
within 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor, and NHP records have no
documentation of red-cockaded woodpeckers in the vicinity of the study corridor.
Based on a NHP record search and observations during the recent field visit, this
project will not affect red-cockaded woodpecker. NO EFFECT
Pondberry - Pondberry is a deciduous shrub with a limited distribution occurring in two
portions of the southeastern United States: the Mississippi Valley and the Coastal Plain
of the Carolinas (FWS 1993). Within the two portions of its range, pondberry is known
- to occupy different habitats. While pondberry is known from hardwood depressional
areas with perched water tables in the Mississippi Valley, in the Carolinas, pondberry
occurs along margins of sink holes, ponds, and depressions in pinelands (FWS 1993).
Within North Carolina, potential habitat for pondberry is described as 1) shallow ponds
with a sandy substrate, especially sites containing the shrub pondspice (Litsea
aestivalis), and 2) Carolina bays containing a combination of pond cypress (Taxodium
ascendens) with loblolly pine (Pious taeda) and red maple (Leonard 1995).
Site plant communities are 1) roadside/disturbed, and 2) bottomland forest dominated
by 10-20 year old hardwoods. No depressions, ponds, or Carolina bays occur within
the study corridor, and no Lindera spp. were observed in the study corridor during the
recent site visit. NHP records do not document the occurrence of pondberry in the
vicinity of the study corridor.
19

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Pondberry typically occurs in sink-hole
depressions, Carolina bays, or suitable ponded depressions. There is no
suitable habitat for pondberry within the study corridor, and no Lindera spp. were
observed within the study corridor durng the recent site visit. The NHP has no
documentation of pondberry within 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor.
Based on available information, this project will not affect pondberry. NO
EFFECT
Federal Species of Concern - The June 16, 2000 FWS list also includes a category of
species designated as "Federal species of concern" (FSC) (Table 4). A species with
this designation is one that may or may not be listed in the future (formerly C2 candidate
species or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient
information to support listing).
Table 4.
Federal Species of Concern listed for Sampson County (June 16, 2000 FWS list).
Potential State
Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Status*
Bachman 's sparrow Aimophda aestivalis no Sc
Rafinesque's big-eared bat**
Southern hognose snake
Mimic glass lizard**
Carolina gopher frog
American sand-borrowing mayfly**
Venus flytrap
Butternut*
White wicky
Pondspice
Carolina bogmint**
Spring-flowering goldenrod
A liverwort**
Corynorhinus rahnesquii yes SC (PT) .
refinesquii (=Plecotueuii
Heterodon si
mus no SR (PSC)
Ophisaurus mimicus no SC (PT)
Rana capiti capito no SC (PT)
Dolanio americana no SR
Dioneae muscipula no C-SC
Juglans cinerea no W5
Kalmia cuneata no E-SC
Litsea aestivalis no C
Macbridea caroliniana no T
Solidago vem no T
Cylindrocolea andersonii yes W2
* E = Endangered; T = threatened; SC = Special concern; SR = Significantly Rare; C = Candidate; P = Species
has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern; W2 = NC Plant Watch List:
rare, but taxonomically questionable; W5 = NC Plant Watch List: rare because of severe decline
** Has not been observed in Sampson County for 20 years
20
f
The FSC designation provides no federal protection under the ESA for the species
listed. However, NHP files have no documentation of FSC species within the study
corridor or within 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor.
State-Protected Species
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state list as Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Special Concern (SC), Candidate (C), Significantly Rare (SR), or
Proposed (P) (Amoroso 1999, LeGrand and Hall 1999) receive limited protection under
the North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North a
Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202 et seq.). NHP records indicate that
no terrestrial or aquatic State-listed species have been documented within 1 mile (1.6
kilometers) of the study corridor.
VIII. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR
Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their
undertakings (federally-funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or s
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and to afford the '
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on such
undertakings. The project was coordinated with the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) in accordance with the Advisory Council's regulations and
FHWA procedures.
B. Historic Architecture
T
A field survey of the area of potential effect (APE) was conducted by Ko and Associates
on February 29, 2000. All structures within the APE were photographed on February 29,
2000, and submitted for review. Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT staff architectural historian,
reviewed the maps and photographs. On June 1, 2000, representatives of NCDOT,
FHWA and the State Historic Preservation Office reviewed properties in the project's
area of potential effect and concluded there are no properties, including Bridge No. 15,
considered eligible for the National Register and a concurrence form was signed to this
effect. A copy of the concurrence form is included in the Appendix. _
21
C. Archaeology
In their September 5, 2000, letter, the SHPO stated "We have conducted a review of the
project and are aware of no properties of architectural, historic, or archaeological -
significance which would be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment
on the project as currently proposed." Given the limited scope of the project, no effects
on archaeological sites are anticipated.
IX. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact by replacing a potentially
unsafe bridge.
The project is considered a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or
natural environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulations. No
significant change in land use is expected to result from replacement of the bridge.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not
expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The studied route does not contain any bicycle accommodations, nor is it a designated
bicycle route; therefore, no bicycle accommodations have been included as part of this
project.
Both alternatives replace the existing bridge at its current location with identical
permanent right-of-way requirements. The required right-of-way for both alternatives
affects only wetlands, bottomland hardwood forest or distributed roadside land.
Alternative 1 would require a temporary easement to contain the temporary on-site
detour. Neither of the alternatives involves any existing farmland and both alternatives
have the same "Farmland Conversion Impact Rating" score of 60. The Natural
Resources Conservation Service (USDA) determined that no prime farmlands would be
affected by either alternative, thereby, meeting the requirements of the Farmland
Protection Policy Act (7 CFR Part 658).
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl
refuges of National, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
22

The project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the
regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required. 40 CFR
Part 51 is not applicable because the proposed project is located in an attainment area.
The replacement of the existing bridge will not increase or decrease traffic volumes
because of the project. The noise levels will increase during the construction period,
but will only be temporary. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for
highway traffic noise of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772 and for
air quality (1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act)
and no additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Division of Waste Management revealed no leaking underground
storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse
environmental effects will result from implementation of the project.
X. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
Agency Coordination
Letters requesting comments and environmental input were sent to the following
agencies:
US Army Corps of Engineers- Wilmington District ;
*US Fish and Wildlife Service
*US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service
State Clearinghouse
*NC Department of Cultural Resources
NC Department of Public Instruction
*NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources Y
NC Wildlife Commission i
*NC Division of Water Quality
NC Natural Heritage Program
County Manager, Sampson County -
Chairman, Sampson County Commissioners
Superintendent, Sampson County Public Schools
Sampson County Regional Medical Center
Asterisks (*) indicates agencies from which written comments were received. The
23

comments are included in the appendix of this report.
Public Involvement
Due to the isolated nature of this bridge replacement project, no formal public
involvement program was initiated. Ko & Associates prepared a newsletter that was
sent to property owners in the immediate vicinity. No comments from property owners
were received as a result of the newsletter.
24
f
REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and -?
Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Raleigh.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS -79/31. Fish
and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1998. Classifications and Water Quality Standards
Assigned to the Waters of the Cape Fear River Basin. North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1996. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality
Management Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Raleigh.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1985. Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia. 88 pp.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1993. Recovery Plan for Pondberry (Lindera s
melissifolia). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, GA. 56 pp.
Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature
Conservancy, Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp. _
LeGrand, H. E., S. P. Hall. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal
Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Raleigh.
Leonard, S. 1995. Monitoring, Management, and Restoration of Pondberry (Lindera
melissaefolia) in North Carolina. Final Report. 12 pp.
25
!r
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison Ill. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, NC. 264 pp.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 412 pp.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 408 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishers of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Deleware. The University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, N.C. 222 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources. Raleigh. 325 pp.
Thompson, R.L. and W.W. Baker. 1971. A survey of red-cockaded woodpeckers
nesting habitat requirements (pp. 170-186). In R.L. Thompson ed., The Ecology
and Management of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker. Tall Timbers Research
Station, Tallahassee, FL.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1984. Soil Survey of Sampson County, North
Carolina. USDA National Cooperative Soil Survey.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1997. Natural Resources Conservation
Service. Technical Guide, Section II-A-2.
26

U. S. Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual. Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS. 100 pp.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the
Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp.
a

27

wr

Y
I IF

cS
$ A M(P
+M p e
?l , 3 ~ 1 140
i
,?C i p ., K.nn.dy O
,'?; O Weeley c--& 1147
1112
? „17
11116
-- 1006 1142
\S ?D'U 4P H/ .t YNE CO. ,309
'
1144
r
\cb6e?-?-•`y5` ? 117 117 S
® i \? 1311 \
\? a. ® •u•1321
0 \
.1

\? ! ?
\? 1303
13m
%.

1417
F
ni Ty\ ?` e P

? . ,330
? \? , \$

1335

(?
\ 1301 \
1337

1301
1373,
. 41\131E I
1332
\\ t3oa
/? 1356
1354
Q
1353
NORTH CAROLINA DBPARTMBNT OF TJtANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF ffiG "A"S
PRon= DBVBLOPMBNT AND
>?xr 4a BNVIROMBNTAL ANALTM W"CH
BRIDGE NO. 15
NC 50 OVER YOUNGS SWAMP
SAMPSON COUNTY
B-3698
VICINITY MAP
0 1 2 3
GRAPHIC SCALE (MILES) FIGURE I
Ah
- NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENTAND
ENVIR©NIdIENTAL ANAILYSIS BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 15
ON N.C. 50 OVER YOUNG'S SdR A-NIP
SAMPSON COUNTY
B-3698
FIGURE 2-A
LOOKING NORTH ACROSS BRLDGE
LOOKING SOUTH ACROSS BRIDGE

DOWNS"4 REAM - LAS I ?IUL
RRTI GV PROFILE
UPSTREAM - WEB p siDL
BRIDGE PROFILE
NORTH CAROLLNA DEPART'- TNT OF
?( r TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHAVAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPNHAT AN
ENVIRONMENTAL -ANALYSIS BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 15
ON N.C. 50 OVER YOUNG'S Sad AM2
SATN PSON COUNTY
B-3698
--
----- FIGURE 2-B

O Pry
/6 o a z ?E~r ? O ? ,
0
U
a e
U?U OZ
12
8
08 V? zoz

3 3

U o W

= c? a
? W
i3e

r W
U
Z p p
~
v
i p ?
X w W
W CL H N
H

A

W A

i A

l ?
t +
+
?
i
'JS•
y(J. fly ?t_????r? . t, f •?j ?
??`?t ?
?
{
i j,
l

jil- .i
rt P
at

r`y
*i
I cy s
1?
__ Ns?,r.
V \?
N-\
R ?.

I&
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTES
A M
C'1?13
?. . RO
C

cla.- i O

11147

.
?
"
r 112 ?
111 5
11,7
1115 `X1
/ 1006 1116
?`duri`?•, c3op?2 ?K nv?
I co.
J V ,T 1309
V 1308 ,
1142

1144
X6 '117

\?
¦ 311
'
?
4 1321 1373,
O /
POP.

x

1322

1417 e

F
P

\$. 330

,335

1337
130,
1332
t3o4
7356
0
1353
NORTH CAROLINA MWARTMSNT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIQHIVATS
MtORM DWEIMM U AND
o° ZNNVIROM UAL ANALTSM W"CH
BRIDGE NO. 15
NC 50 OVER YOUNGS SWAMP
SAMPSON COUNTY
B-3698
DETOUR ALTERNATIVES
1 2 3
!RAPHIC SCALE (MILES) FIGURE 5

. United States Department of the In
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
September 14, 2000
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
O
prior,
Mro sfP 10^ prl

Thank you for your July 28, 2000 request for information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) on the potential environmental impacts of proposed bridge replacements
Sampson County, North Carolina. This report provides scoping information and is provided in
accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (16 U.S.C. 661-
667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-
1543). This report also serves as initial scoping comments to federal and state resource agencies
for use in their permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace the following
bridge structures:
1. B-3698 Bridge No. 15 on NC 50 over Young's Swamp;
2. B-3699 Bridge No. 67 on NC 903 over Coharie Creek; and,
3. B-3514 Bridge No. 100 on SR 1246 over South River.
The following recommendations are provided to assist you in your planning process and to
facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we recommend that proposed
highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors, or
previously developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. Areas
exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed and region should be

avoided. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings
and/or occur on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures
that maintain natural water flows and hydraulic regimes without scouring, or impeding fish and
wildlife passage, should be employed. Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced
through wetland areas. Roadway embankments and fill areas should be stabilized by using Y
appropriate erosion control devices and techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in
sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps of the Roseboro, Dobbersville, and Ingold 7.5
Minute Quadrangles show wetland resources in the specific work areas. However, while the
NWI maps are useful for providing an overview of a given area, they should not be relied upon in -
lieu of a detailed wetland delineation by trained personnel using an acceptable wetland
classification methodology. Therefore, in addition to the above guidance, we recommend that
the environmental documentation for this project include the following in sufficient detail to
facilitate a thorough review of the action.
1. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted by
filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory. Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987 Corps of
Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps).
2. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made to
identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts. Opportunities to
protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation easement, should be
explored at the outset.
The document presents a number of scenarios for replacing each bridge, ranging from in-place to
relocation, with on-site and off site detours. The Service recommends that each bridge be
replaced on the existing alignment with an off-site detour.
The enclosed list identifies the federally-listed endangered and threatened species, and Federal
Species of Concern (FSC) that are known to occur in Sampson County. The Service
recommends that habitat requirements for the listed species be compared with the available
habitats at the respective project sites. If suitable habitat is present within the action area of the
project, biological surveys for the listed species should be performed. Environmental
documentation that includes survey methodologies, results, and NCDOT's recommendations
based on those results, should be provided to this office for review and comment.
FSC's are those plant and animal species for which the Service remains concerned, but further _
biological research and field study are needed to resolve the conservation status of these taxa.
Although FSC's receive no statutory protection under the ESA, we would encourage the NCDOT
to be alert to their potential presence, and to make every reasonable effort to conserve them if
found. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for information on
species under state protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Tom
McCartney at 919-856-4520, ext. 32.
Sincerely,
Garland B. Pazdue
Ecological Services Supervisor
Enclosures
cc:
COE, Wilmington, NC (David Timpy)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessey)
NCDNR, Northside, NC (David Cox)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:09/14/00:919/856-4520 extension 32:\4brdgssc.otl
f
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Mountain catchfly Silene ovata - FSC**
White irisette Slsr inchium dichotomum
Endangered
Nonvascular_ Plants
Rock gnome-lichen Gymnoderma lineare
Endangered
SAMPSON COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bachman's sparrow
American alligator Aimophila aestivalis
FSC
Rafinesque's big-eared bat Alligator mississippiensis T(S/A)

Southern hognose snake Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) rafnesquii FSC**

Mimic glass lizard Heterodon simus

Ophisaurus mimicur
FSC*
*
Red-cockaded woodpecker
Carolina gopher frog Picoides borealis FSC
Endangered
Rana capito capito FSC
Invertebrates
American sand burrowing mayfly Dolania americana FSC
Vascular Plants
Venus flytrap
Butternut Dionea muscipula FSC

White wicky Juglans cinerea FSC

Pondbeny Kalmia cuneata FSC

Pondspice Lindera melissifolia Endan ered
g

Carolina bogmint Litsea aestivalis
Macbridea carolinian _ FSC

Spring-flowering goldenrod a
Solidago verna FSC
FSC
Nonvascular Plants
A liverwort Cylindrocolea andersonii FSC*
SCOTLAND COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis FSC
American alligator
Southern hognose snake Alligator mississippiensis T(S/A)

Red-cockaded woodpecker Heterodon simus
Picoides borealis FSC

Northern pine snake
Ca
li
Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus Endangered
FSC**
ro
na gopher frog Rana capito capito FSC
Vascular Plants
Sandhills milkvetch
R
i Astragalus michauxii FSC
es
nous boneset
White wicky Eupatorium resinosum FSC

Sandhills bog lily Kalmia cuneata FSC

Bog spicebush Lilium iridollae FSC*
Lindera subcoriacea FSC
January 15, 1999
Page 40 of 49

a

T
i

U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
-PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) Atter
Site Site
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C. Total Acres In Site 2. Z Z? 1?
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Maximum
Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b) Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use /
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed 49
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average O O
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
10. On-Farm Investments ,Q
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services Q
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use b'J Q
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 lOd ,go
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100
Total Site Assessment (From Part V) above or a local 160 &0
site assessment)
TOTAL POI NTS (Total of above 2 lines)
Site Selected:
Reason For Selection:
260
Date Of Selection
0
A Local Site Assessment Used?
Yes ? No ?
(See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD-1006 l10-83i
dat SWE 4?
ti
u
+wa
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources _
State Historic Preservation Office
a
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey j. Crow, Director
September 5, 2000
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Develop & Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook
Deputy State Historic reservation OJc/erL4
Re: B-3698, Bridge No. 15 on NC 50 Over Young's Swamp, ER 01-7260,
B-3699, Bridge No. 67 on NC 903 over Coharie Creek, ER 01-7261,
B-3514, Bridge No. 100 on SR 1246 (Butler Island Bridge Rd) over South River,
ER 01-7262, Bridge Improvements, Sampson County
Thank you for your memorandum of July 28, 2000, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no properties of architectural,
historic, or archaeological significance which would be affected by the project. Therefore, we
have no comment on the project as currently proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section
106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/7334763.
DB:kgc
cc: Mary Pope Furr, NC DOT
T. Padgett, NC DOT
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] • 733-8653
ARCHAEOLOGY 421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4619 [phone] • 715-2671
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613 [phone] • 715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4618 Mail Service Center Raw.h yr 77f00_AA1R ioio? 7,21_4cel; . 71r,_A901

Federal Aid #BRSTP-50(4) TIP #B-3698
U County: Sampson
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATION
REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES AL
Project Description: Replace Bride Mn 15 on NC 50 over Young's Swamp
On June 1, 2000, representatives of the
F.
LUd
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Q? Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Reviewed the subject project at
scoping
? meeting
photograph review session/consultation
? other
All parties present agreed
? there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the hi torical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as 6 T i t 21 3 2 are considered not eligible for the National
Register and no f irthe .evaluation of em is'necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties located within the project's area of potential effect.
a
s
Signed:
p
Representative; CDOT
)(Z? O
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency

istoric Preservation Officer
Date
Date
Date
y D0
Date
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
R
6
Y
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATIOb
'MS B. HUNT

MEMORANDUM: Sep
TO: Melba McGee <? s ..P t ?
FROM: David Harrison 0
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacement ProJf???
3693 (Robeson County); and B-3514, B-3698 and B-3 am
9, 2000
Z and B-
County)
If additional land is needed beyond the existing right-of-way, the
environmental assessment should include information on adverse impacts to
Prime or Statewide Important Farmland.
The definition of Prime or Statewide Important Farmland is based on the
soil series and not on its current land use. Areas that are developed or are within
municipal boundaries are exempt from consideration as Prime or Important
Farmland.
For additional information, contact the soils specialists with the Natural
Resources Conservation Service, USDA, Raleigh, NC at [phone].
cc: William D. Gilmore
?v
1614 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1614
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
0
1
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
min
NCDENR

August 8, 2000
MEMORANDUM SE? ` -
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager, ?x 0,, e ;,I. r
NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis URCr t??'
Through: ohn Dorney, NC Division of Water Quality
From: John Hennes pj??
Subject: Scoping comments on proposed Sampson County Bridge Replacement Projects:
B-3698, Bridge No. 15 on NC 50 over Young's Swamp,
B-3699, Bridge No. 67 on NC 903 over Great, Coharie Creek, and
B-3514, Bridge No. 100 on SR 1246 (Butler Island Bridge Road) over South
River. 1\
This memo is in reference to your correspondence dated 28 July 2000 (received August 4, 2000), in which
you requested scoping comments for the referenced bridge projects within the Cape Fear River Basin.
Preliminary analysis of the project reveals that Bridge No. 15 will span Young's Swamp. The DWQ index
number for the stream is 18-74-19-1. Bridge No. 67 traverses the Great Coharie Creek; the DWQ stream
index number is 18-68-1. Bridge No. 100 crosses the South River; the DWQ stream index number is 18-
68-12-(0.5). All of the streams are classified as C Swamp.
The Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider the following environmental issues for the
proposed project:
A. In planning documents and preliminary designs, NCDOT should consider the possibility that buffer
rules could be implemented in the future within the Cape Fear River Basin.
B. There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required,
it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental
documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted
that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance
of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
C. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road
closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ
requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
D. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
08/10/00
Page 2
E. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structurestmeasures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by
DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to streams in excess of 150 linear feet.
F. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will
be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow. Y
G. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. However, if the new structure is to be a culvert, it
should be countersunk, by a minimum of one foot, to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic
organisms passage through the crossing. Design and placement of culverts and other structures
including temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may result in
disequilibrium of wetlands or stream beds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream of the
above structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium shall be
maintained if requested in writing by DWQ. Additionally, when roadways, causeways or other fill
projects are constructed across FEMA-designated floodways or wetlands, openings such as culverts
or bridges must be provided to maintain the natural hydrology of the system as well as prevent
constriction of the floodway that may result in destabilization of streams or wetlands.
H. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
I. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) ), mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that
mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506
(h)(3)}, the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
J. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
K. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for storm water management. More specifically, storm water should not be permitted to
discharge directly into the creek. Instead, storm water should be designed to drain to a properly
designed storm water detention facility/apparatus.
L. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool,
their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior
to permit approval.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met
and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information,
please contact John Hennessy at [phone].
Pc: Dyid T' y, Corps of Engineers
M?e1c; USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
File Copy
Central Files