Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19940939 Ver 1_Complete File_19941006 e ? -% JAMES B. HUNT, JR. GOVERNOR STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Lzzi DEPARTMENT OF TE ANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 October 3, 1994 District Engineer Army Corps of Engineers P. O. Box 1890 Wilmington, North Carolina 28402 ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch Dear Sir: q Li 93 ? Subject: Edgecombe County, Bridge No. 83 on SR 1418 over a Tributary of Fishing Creek Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1418(3), State Project No. 8.2290501, TIP No. 2553. Attached for your information are.three copies of the project planning report for the subject project. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November 22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed in the construction of the project. We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2745 (Categorical Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, for their review. 0 R. SAMUEL HUNT I II SECRETARY If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Mr. Doug Huggett at 733-3141. A Sincerely, B. 0? uinn PE Assista nch Manager Planning and Environmental Branch BJO/dvh cc: w/attachment Mr. Ken Jolly, COE-Raleigh Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DEM Mr. John Parker, NCDEHNR, DCM w/out attachment Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch Mr. Don Morton, PE, Highway Design.Branch Mr. A.L. Hankins, PE, Hydraulics Unit Mr. John L. Smith Jr., PE, Structure Design Unit Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, Roadway Design Unit Mr. D.R. Dupree, Division 4 Engineer Ms. Michele L. James, Planning and Environmental Branch Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and Environmental Branch Edgecombe County, Bridge No. 83 on SR 1418 over Tributary of Fishing Creek Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1418(3) State Project No. 8.2290501 I.D. No. B-2553 a .j CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION AND N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS APPROVED: ? ? f t -12 ^w Date H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager r Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT uo - ?4- L Date f, Nic ola L Graf, P. E. t?P Division Administrator, FHWA Edgecombe County, Bridge No. 83 on SR 1418 over Tributary of Fishing Creek Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1418(3) State Project No. 8.2290501 I.D. No. B-2553 CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION June, 1994 Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By: Mi.c ele L. James Project Planning Engineer Wayne Elliott Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head Lubin Prevatt, P. E. Assistant Manager of Planning and Environmental _ C L _ 6976 V. f' E Edgecombe County, Bridge No. 83 on SR 1418 over Tributary of Fishing Creek Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1418(3) State Project No. 8.2290501 I.D. No. B-2553 Bridge No. 83 is included in the 1994-2000 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The TIP funding for this project is estimated at $265,000. The current estimated cost for this project is $175,000 which includes $25,000 for right of way and $150,000 for construction. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "categorical exclusion". I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Bridge No. 83 will be replaced slightly west of its existing location with a reinforced concrete box culvert as shown by Alternate 2 (see Figure 2). Preliminary hydrographic studies indicate that a 10' x 7' reinforced concrete box culvert should be provided. The structure will accommodate a 20-foot pavement plus 4-foot graded shoulders. Approximately 1,000 feet of approach work will be necessary. The approach roadway will be a 20-foot pavement plus 4-foot graded shoulders. The south approach will require approximately three additional feet on the inside of the curve for curve widening. Traffic will be maintained on the existing structure during construction. II. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts. A total of 0.4 acre of wetlands will be impacted by the project. A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 (1665) Water Quality General Certification is required, prior to issue of the Nationwide permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A)23. Final permit decisions lie with the Army Corps of Engineers. III. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS Even though the roadway's design speed is being improved, the project is likely to require a design exception due to the horizontal alignment being below AASHTO Standards. 2 IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS SR 1418 is classified as a rural local route in the Statewide Functional Classification System and is not a Federal Aid road. In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1418 has a 19-foot unpaved roadway with 3 to 5-foot shoulders (see Figure 2). The structure is situated 10 feet above the creek bed. The approaches are on embankments 5-7 feet above natural ground. The project is located in a rural area with agricultural fields dominating the landscape. There are no utilities in the vicinity of the bridge. The current traffic volume of 200 VPD is expected to increase to approximately 400 VPD by the year 2016. The projected volume includes 1% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 2% dual-tired vehicles (DT). The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was constructed in 1953. The superstructure consists of a timber floor on timber joists. The substructure consists of timber caps and piles. The overall length is 35 feet. The clear roadway width is 19.2 feet. The posted weight limit is 10 tons for single vehicles and 18 tons for trucks with trailers. Bridge No. 83 has a sufficiency rating of 19.1 compared to a rating of 100.0 for a new structure. No accidents were reported on Bridge No. 83 during the period from July, 1989 to July, 1992. No school buses cross the studied bridge. V. ALTERNATIVES Two alternative methods of replacing Bridge No. 83 were studied as follows: Alternate 1 would involve replacement of Bridge No. 83 in its existing location with a 10' x 7' reinforced concrete box culvert. During construction, traffic would be detoured on existing local roads as shown on Figure 1. This alignment would provide a design speed of approximately 30 mph. Alternate 2 (Recommended) involves replacing Bridge No. 83 approximately 50 feet west of the existing structure with a 10' x 7' reinforced concrete box culvert. During construction, traffic will be maintained on the existing structure. This alternate improves the horizontal alignment. The design speed will be improved to approximately 40 mph. 3 The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not prudent due to the traffic services provided by SR 1418. Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that rehabilitation of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition. VI. ESTIMATED COST Estimated costs of the studied alternatives are as follows: (Recommended) Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Structure $ 29,000 $ 29,000 Roadway Approaches. 32,000 76,000 Detour Structure & Approaches - - Structure Removal 4,000 4,000 Engineering & Contingencies 25,000 41,000 Right-of-Way, Utilities 20,000 25,000 Total $ 110,000 $ 175,000 VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS Bridge No. 83 will be replaced approximately 50 feet west of its existing location with a reinforced concrete box culvert as shown by O Alternate 2 in Figure 2. During construction, traffic will be maintained on the existing structure. The recommended improvements will include about 1000 feet of roadway approaches. A 20-foot pavement plus 4-foot graded shoulders will be provided on the culvert and approaches. Based on preliminary studies, the Hydrographics Unit recommends a 10' x 7' reinforced concrete box culvert. It is.anticipated the elevation of the new structure will have the same floor elevation of the existing bridge. The length and height may be increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by further hydrologic studies. 4 Approximately 100 feet north of the bridge, the roadway grade is 4 feet lower than the bridge deck. To avoid the frequent flooding of the north approach, it is recommended that the roadway at the sag point be raised two feet above the existing roadway. Bridge No. 83 has a poor horizontal alignment. The structure is the only tangent section between two reverse curves. A 20° curve exists on the south approach of the bridge. The existing design speed on the bridge is approximately 30 mph. Alternate 2 was selected in order to improve the roadway alignment. Alternate 2 contains a horizontal curve on the south approach of approximately 12° which provides for a design speed of approximately 40 mph. A design exception will probably be required. Maintaining traffic on-site is not essential. Approximately 7.1 miles of additional travel would be necessary for the average vehicle affected by road closure. A road-user analysis, based on a 3-month construction period, indicates the cost of additional travel would be approximately $39,000. The Division Engineer concurs with the recommended Alternate 2. SR 1418 has a paving priority of No. 6. VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations. The project is considered to be a Federal "categorical exclusion" due to its limited scope and insignificant environmental consequences. With the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications, the bridge replacement will not have a significant adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural environment. The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project. No adverse impact on, families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition will be limited. No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area. r r r The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to consider the potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land acquisition and construction 5 projects. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the U. S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS). The SCS was asked to determine whether the proposed project will impact farmland soils and if necessary, to complete Form AD-1006, Farmland Conversion Impact Rating. The completed form is included in the Appendix (A-1). According to the SCS, 0.83 acres of prime farmland soils will be affected by Alternate 2. The SCS rated the soils at 93 using its Land Evaluation Criterion scale of 0 to 100 points. Completion of the quantitative site assessment on Form AD-1006 indicates that the farmland is of a relative value high enough to warrant consideration of alternatives that would minimize the project's impacts to farmland soils. Alternate 1 is preferable from the perspective of conservation of prime farmland soils. 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 as 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that if a federally-funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a property listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an opportunity to comment. The area of potential effect (APE) of this project was reviewed in the field. No structures over fifty years old were found in the APE. The SHPO letter, dated October 29, 1992, stated that they were aware of no historic structures located within the APE and recommended no historic architectural survey. The letter is included in the Appendix (A-2). Since there are no properties either listed in or eligible for the National Register in the APE, no further compliance with Section 106 is required. The project does not involve any Section 4(f) properties. There are no publicly-owned parks, historic sites, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance. The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was consulted early in the project planning process. The SHPO requested that NCDOT conduct an archaeological survey of the area which might be impacted by the replacement of Bridge No. 83. The archaeological survey was performed on January 19, 1993 by two NCDOT staff archaeologists. The site was revisited for additional testing on February 11, 1993. Site 31ED309 appears to have been a domestic site which was utilized prehistorically during the Middle to Late Woodland Period. The site was probably partially disturbed by the construction of SR 1418 and plowing over the years apparently has robbed the site of any stratigraphic integrity. 6 No subsurface features were found in any of the shovel test pits excavated on the site or in the 1 x 1 meter test unit. It is possible that features intrusive into the silty clay subsoil might be present here and may simply not have been found during-the site testing. Based on the available date, 31ED309 does not appear to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The lack of site integrity caused by repeated plowing, and the limited range and quantity of materials found on the site, restrict the potential of this site to yield substantive information beyond that which is already known. A portion of Site 31ED309 will be destroyed by the replacement of Bridge No. 83. However, because 31ED309 does not appear to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, no further archaeological work will be necessary to mitigate the impact of the construction on the archaeological site. The SHPO concurs that site 31ED309 is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Their June 3, 1993 letter is included in the Appendix (A-3). Edgecombe County is in the Northern/Central Coastal Plain Physiographic Province and is characterized by smooth, gently undulating plateaus, plains, and nearly level bottomland floodplains. The project area is in the Middle Coastal Plain soil system. Parent material is mostly fluvial and marine sediments. The soils of the plains of the project area are well drained fine sandy loams of the Dogue series. The soils of the low ridges and slopes leading to the stream are well drained soils of the State Loamy Sand series. The soils of the floodplain are generally poorly drained silts and loams of the Chewacla series. These soils have inclusions of hydric soils of the Wehadkee series. ' The unnamed tributary of Fishing Creek, crossed by the project alignment, is in the Tar/Pamlico River drainage basin. This intermittent stream arises approximately 0.7 mile east of the existing bridge, flowing east into Fishing Creek, approximately 430 feet downstream of crossing. The streambed is approximately 8 feet wide at the point of crossing. The channel was mostly dry during the site visit, with some shallow pools retaining water. The substrate is composed of rock and cobble overlain with sand and fine silt. The waters of the unnamed tributary to Fishing Creek will also carry the Best Usage Classification of Fishing Creek, which is C NSW as assigned by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR), 1993. Class C designates waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. The supplemental classification NSW denotes Nutrient Sensitive Waters, which require limitations on nutrient inputs. No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS-I, or WS-II occur within 1 mile of the.project area. 7 The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) assesses water quality by sampling for selected benthic Macroinvertebrate organisms. The species richness and overall biomass are reflections of water quality. The stream crossed by the project has not undergone any BMAN surveys; however, at sampling stations in Fishing Creek approximately 5 miles upstream and downstream of the confluence of Fishing Creek and the tributary to Fishing Creek, the stream was given a "Good" biodiversity rating (February,. 1989 to February, 1990). The DEM National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) report lists no permitted discharge sources into the stream crossed by the proposed project. t The stream impacted by the proposed project is intermittent. If construction would take place during the summer months when the stream is dry, impacts to waters would be greatly reduced, or eliminated. Potential impacts to water resources include decreases in dissolved oxygen and changes in ambient water temperature. These two impacts result from removal of the streamside canopy and removal/burial of aquatic vegetation. Sedimentation and substrate disturbance occurring during construction can significantly reduce water clarity. Culvert construction may cause flow restrictions during construction and channelization once in place, in turn, altering the water level and flow characteristics of the streams. If stream channel relocation is required and is greater than 100 ft or > 50 ft on either side, consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) will be required, per the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 USC 661-667d). Relocated stream segments will be designed to have similar characteristics (depth, width, and substrate) as the original stream. This also includes re-establishment of streamside vegetation. Representative animal species which are likely to occur in these habitats are cited, along with brief descriptions of their respective "roles" within that community. Spoor evidence is equated with sightings of individuals. Common names are used for plant and animal species described. Three distinct biotic community types were identified in the project impact zone; however, there is some degree of overlap between communities, particularly with the faunal components. Numerous terrestrial animals are highly adaptive and populate a variety of habitats. Many of the species mentioned may occur in all of the community types described. ` The Cypress-Gum Swamp occurs on the floodplain of Fishing Creek and the unnamed tributary crossed by the proposed project. Bald cypress and tupelo gum are the dominant canopy species, with red maple, swamp chestnut oak, water oak, river birch, green ash and yellow poplar present to a lesser extent. The canopy is fairly mature, but logging of cypress trees is apparent in some patches. Ironwood, American holly and red maple constitute the understory. Sweet gum is found in the understory, bordering the cleared roadway. 8 Shrubs and herbs are absent-to-sparse. Giant cane and blackberry occur, but are not dense anywhere. Sensitive fern and arum are sparsely scattered. Vines such as green brier, saw green brier, blaspheme vine, poison ivy and muscadine are prevalent. The hydrology of this swamp has been altered by ditching and agricultural practices. Conditions in the swamp were very dry during the site visit. Areas of standing water were limited to a few small depressions in a floodplain that is normally saturated-inundated for a significant period of time. Despite the altered hydrology, this community still meets the criteria of a jurisdictional wetland. Swamp communities are transitional zones (ecotones) between terrestrial and aquatic habitats, encompassing distinct gradients of environmental factors and ecological processes. Intricate relationships between terrestrial and aquatic components (plant and animal) shape the community structure. The vascular plant component of this community (canopy, sub-canopy, shrub and herbaceous strata, etc.) is a major base of the aquatic food chain. Birds are the most prominent and conspicuous group of vertebrates found in the forest. Wood boring and defoliating insects are abundant and are consumed by birds, such as downy woodpecker,, yellow-bellied sapsucker, pileated woodpecker, blue-gray gnatcatcher-, yellow-throated warbler, white-breasted nuthatch, swamp sparrow, prothonotary warbler, northern parula and wood thrush. The forest contains many large mast- producing trees. Other fruits and seeds are plentiful and are also consumed by these species as well as tufted titmouse, solitary vireo, gray catbird, and northern cardinal. The predatory barred owl inhabits wet bottomland forests, 'nesting in tree cavities and hunting from tree limbs. Small mammals, frogs, insects and birds are the primary prey items. Piscivorous birds such as great blue heron, green heron and belted kingfisher were observed during the site visit. Frogs, crustaceans and small invertebrates also constitute a major portion of these species diets. Forest edges near clearings such as roadways and fields are preferred nesting sites for the red-shouldered hawk and scarlet tanager. Ephemeral pools formed by floodplain depressions are utilized as breeding pools for species such as spotted salamander, southern cricket frog, spring peeper and many other amphibians. Marbled and southern dusky " salamanders are also found in floodplain habitats; however, they lay their eggs in damp soil, or rotting logs rather than in pools. Populations of many of these species are in decline, for a variety of reasons, including habitat loss and degradation, as well as hydrological and climatological changes. Mammals such as raccoon, golden mouse and southeastern shrew occur in a wide variety of habitats, but are most abundant in forested areas near water, as 'are the eastern ribbon snake and ringneck snake, which were found under logs in the dry floodplain. 9 Maintained Communities are land parcels in which the vegetation is kept in a low-growing, non-successional state. These communities include the existing roadside and adjacent agriculture field on the southern approach. The narrow roadside shoulder has a limited amount of vegetative growth, which is primarily fescues. Other herbaceous species present include dandelion, nightshade, pokeweed and wild onion. Poison ivy, blackberry and Japanese honeysuckle are abundant in the ecotone between the roadside and the swamp community. The agriculture field was recently plowed during the site visit, and supported no vegetation. The roadside area is too small in size to support much of a faunal assemblage. The unstratified nature of the agricultural field also limits the number of fauna. Small mammals, particularly rodents are common ` occupants of field environments. Species observed in the field community include American crow, turkey vulture and white-tailed deer. Deer populations are abundant in this region of the state, which contains a significant amount of open area bordered by extensive woodlands. The stream crossed by the project is intermittent and aquatic conditions persist for a short duration of the year; however, faunal diversity in many intermittent streams is surprisingly diverse. Faunal composition of these streams is greatly influenced by climatological events, and can vary greatly from year to year. Animal species which populate these streams have adapted several mechanisms to combat drying conditions. Many early-emerging insects which have aquatic life stages utilize intermittent streams. These insects lay their eggs early in the wet season (late fall-early winter), to ensure that developmental stages take place while the streams still carry water. These species complete metamorphosis and emerge from the stream before it drys in the summer. Other insects have eggs or nymph stages which can survive long periods of drought, and can aestivate or remain dormant during the summer months. Other species survive by burrowing down into the substratum. These include flatworms, nematodes, crayfish, snails and other invertebrates as well as salamanders which burrow in dry months or move to wetter areas. Some areas of these streams may retain water during the dry months; however, without continual flow, these pools become very warm and have low oxygen concentrations. Species populating these pools, which include crayfish, snails, flatworms and some fish, have physiological adaptations to withstand extreme temperatures and low oxygen levels. Bluegill and eastern mosquitofish are two species observed in pools along the streambed. Several frog species were also observed in the streambed and were most abundant near pools. These include bullfrog, southern leopard frog and southern cricket frog. Many fish will move into intermittent streams when water returns, often to spawn. Spawning in these streams runs the risk of young being stranded when streams dry out. Therefore, intermittent stream spawners usually spawn early or are able to survive in low oxygenated pools. 10 Fishing Creek was examined briefly at the confluence with the unnamed tributary. Fish species captured include bluegill, pirate perch and shield darter. Several freshwater mussels were also observed, including Atlantic pigtoe, a federal candidate species, triangle floater and notched rainbow. The introduced asian clam was abundant. Construction of this project will have various impacts on the biotic communities described. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts to these resources in terms of area impacted (cleared/modified), and ecosystem effects. Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here. Project construction will result in clearing and degradation of portions of the five terrestrial community types described. The estimated loss to these communities is listed in Table 1. It should be noted that estimated impacts were derived using the entire proposed right of .way. Project construction often does not require the entire right of way and therefore actual impacts may be considerably less. TABLE 1. ESTIMATED IMPACTS TO BIOTIC COMMUNITIES Biotic Community Alternate CPS MC 1 0.32 0.24 2 0.48 0.20 Impacts in hectares (acres) are based on (80 ft.) of ROW. CPS and MC denote Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp and and Maintained Communities respectively * some of this community type is classified as a jurisdictional wetland. The plant communities found along the project alignment serve as shelter, nesting and foraging habitat for numerous species of wildlife. Loss of habitat is likely to reduce the number of faunal organisms and concentrate them into a smaller area. This causes some species to become more susceptible to disease, predation and starvation. Individual mortalities during construction are likely to occur to animals closely associated with the ground (snakes, small mammals, etc.). Mobile species will be displaced during construction activity. These animals may return to the area following construction. The amount of forested habitat which has already been reduced by agricultural clearing, will be reduced even further. Alternate 1 will result in the least amount of impacts to the Biotic Communities and wetlands. 11 The aquatic community of Fishing Creek is not likely to be impacted by the proposed project; however, because of the close proximity to Fishing Creek, excessive sedimentation from the project could be harmful to this community if construction takes place during stream flow. Scheduling construction during dry months would minimize any potential impacts to this community. Anticipated impacts to intermittent stream community can be attributed to construction-related habitat disturbance and sedimentation. Although disturbance and sedimentation may be temporary processes during the construction phase of this project, environmental impacts from these processes may be long-lived or irreversible. This environment serves as a major food source for many terrestrial organisms such as raccoons, various species of snakes, birds, turtles and amphibians. It also serves as a means of predator avoidance for amphibians (frogs and salamanders), reptiles (snakes and turtles), and mammals (muskrat and mink). Many inhabitants of intermittent streams burrow in the substrate, and are particularly sensitive to construction activities such as dredging, filling, pile driving operations and slope stabilization. These construction activities physically disturb the substrate, resulting in loss of sessile benthic organisms. Many of these organisms are slow to recover, or repopulate an area, because they require a stabilized substrate for attachment. Substrate stability may take a long time to develop, therefore, changes in community composition will occur. Habitat disturbance and sedimentation are extremely detrimental to aquatic ecosystems. Best Management Practices (BMP's) for protection of surface waters must be strictly adhered to to ensure the bi8logical integrity of the water bodies impacted by this project. Additionally, measures should be taken to eliminate input of toxic compounds (gasoline, oil, etc.) in the stream, coming from construction- related machinery and road paving activities. Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3, in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S. C. 1344). Potential wetland communities were evaluated using the criteria specified in the 1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual". For an area to be considered a "wetland", the following three specifications must be met: 1) presence of hydric soils (low soil chroma values), 2) presence of hydrophytic vegetation, and 3) evidence of hydrology, including: saturated soils, oxidized rhizospheres, matted vegetation, high water marks on trees, buttressed tree bases and surface roots. Portions of the Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp Community qualify as jurisdictional wetlands. These are associated with the overflow of Fishing Creek and the unnamed tributary. These wetlands are classified as Palustrine Forested, Needle-leaved Deciduous, and Temporarily Flooded 12 (PF02A) as defined by Cowardin et al. (1979). Although hydrology appears to have been altered, the community has remained-flooded for intervals sufficient to produce hydric conditions. Wetland impacts are 0.2 acre for Alternate 1 and 0.4 acre for Alternate 2 (Table 1). Impacts to Waters of the United States fall under the jurisdiction of the O.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). A Nationwide permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A)23, for impacts to surface waters of the tributary of Fishing Creek, is likely to be applicable. This permit authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or in part, by another Federal agency or department. That agency or department has determined that the activity is categorically excluded from environmental documentation, because it will neither individually or cumulatively have a significant environmental effect. A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 (1665) Water Quality General Certification is also required, prior to issuance of the Nationwide permit. Projects authorized under Nationwide Permits usually do not require compensatory mitigation according to the 1989 Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army. Federal law requires that any action, which has the potential to jeopardize the continued existence of any species classified as federally protected, is subject to review by the USFWS and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. Rare species receive additional protection under separate state statutes. In North Carolina protection of plant species falls under N.C. General Statutes (G.S.) 106-202.12 to 106-202.19 of 1979. Wildlife protection falls under G.S. 113-331 to 113-337 of 1987. Plants and Animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of section 7 and section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of December 20, 1993 the FWS lists one federally Endangered species, the Tar River spiny mussel Elli tio steinstansana) for Edgecombe County. The Tar River spiny mussel is endemic to the Tar River drainage basin. This mussel requires a stream with swift flowing, well oxygenated, circumneutral pH water, with an uncompacted gravel, or coarse sand substrate. The water needs to be relatively silt-free. It is known to rely on a species of freshwater fish to act as an intermediate host for its larvae. This species is found only in perennial streams. The intermittent stream crossed by this project does not provide suitable habitat for this species. Although Fishing Creek does provide suitable habitat for this species, the waters of Fishing Creek will not be impacted by the proposed action. It can be concluded that construction of this project will not adversely impact the Tar River spiny mussel. 13 A search of the NC-NHP data base of rare plants and animals resulted in no records of state or federally protected species in the project area, however the triangle floater a state protected species listed as Threatened (T) and notched rainbow, which is classified as Significantly Rare (SR) in North Carolina were found in Fishing Creek along with the Atlantic pigtoe. The project is located within the jurisdiction for air quality of the Raleigh Regional Office of the N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Edgecombe County has been determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effect on the air quality of this attainment area. Since the speed and volume of the traffic will not change, the impact to air quality will be insignificant. If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments and NEPA, and no additional reports are required. The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, its impact on noise levels will be insignificant. Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by,burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772 and no additional reports are required. Edgecombe`County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 4. The amount of floodplain area to be affected is not considered to be significant. There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in alignment would result in a crossing of about the same magnitude. The alignment of the project is perpendicular to the floodplain area. All reasonable measures will be taken to minimize any possible harm. On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no serious adverse environmental effects will result from implementation of the project. MJ/wp i y • NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT C TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH BRIDGE NO. 83 ON SR 1418 OVER TRIBUTARY OF FISHING CREEK EDGECOMBE COUNTY B - 2553 0 miles 2 f f ? - t e?+ t yy? Y V ' P?' d II ti \ ti 1 ? .t r w? t? ?"' h y .v? r. ?~?? '•?, ,t"4 yM A .'.yam •?? t ih,__?,R???..`.. t r. ,. LL 1 4 i. - ?t _ f ? .a..rwnygF ti y _ 1 Y h. to SP?? NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTME, l uI TRANSPORTATION a DIVISION OF IIIGH4tiAVS PLANNING AND ENV MONIMENT20, BRANCH BRIDGE NO. 83 OVER TRIBUTARY OF FISHING CREEK ON SR 1418 Fr EDGECOMBE COUNTY B - 2553 F L. 0 feet 100 FIG.2 BRIDGE NO. 83 EDGECOMBE COUNTY B - 2553 LOOKING NORTH LOOKING SOUTH SIDE VIEW FIGURE 3 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM s FIRM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP EDGECO)ABE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA (UNINCORPORATED AREAS) 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN BRIDGE NO. 83 HAL1,c ?C PANEL 50 OF 250 ISEE .-r "Dt r FOR '-EIS NOT iR-T- !I`•i?ill?1;1111 COMMUNITY-PANEL NUMBER 'p?ll li•I,; 310081 0050 B III. I''I?I illll.?ll!!ull EFFECTIVE DATE: AUGUST 3, 1981 lt?l I;_I ; illy i IL?;Ii federal amergancy management agency I 11 I II III tedaral insurance administration 111111 I, lU ---- ? It0/ 1 Ile d ?' FIGURE 4 1000N _. Ad0:) 1000N - Ad00 U.S. Department of Agriculture FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING Date Of Land Evaluation Reausst Gn • a? ?! PART I (To be corrtolered by Federal Agency) a Name Ot Project Feaeral Agency Involved Proposes `_and Use County And State t? < dre_$3 ` ?a ?GOt•,?o2 Go. NBC o .Z..es??o.G.C ? On SQ-\ ?\$ OVG.?Ct.b•?O•['i S?n?n?. Ci'te.?(?. J I PART 11 (To be completed by SCS) Request Received By SCS Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No (If no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parts of this form). ? ? Acres Irrigated Average Farm Site / Major Croplsl r L• CJ r ti` Formable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction Acres: -3 % ! Amount Of Farmland As Defined in PA Acres: ''b ~ k Nsaw Of Land Evaluation System Used Name Of Local Sim Assessment System Date Land Evaluation Returned BY SC-5 Alternative Site atin PART II I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site A Site a Site C Site D- A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly O 3 B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly C. Total Acres In Site 0 g3 PART IV (To be completed by SCSI Land Evaluation Information A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland 7, B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland C. ' Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt Unit To Be Converted D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value PART V .(To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of Oro 100Points) PART V1 (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site Assessment Criteria (These critwia are exploined in 7 CFR 658.5(6) Maximum Points 1. Area In Nonurban Use 5 \ S 2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use `O ?O 3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed O -4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government O 2)0 5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area W /A 8. Distance To Urban Support Services - 7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared o Average 8_ Creation Of Nonfarmabie Farmland S 9. Availability Of Farm-Support Services -.S 10. On-Farm Investments <3k 11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services O 12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use 0 TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 $ 1 PART VI I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100 Total Site Assessment (From Parr V1 above ora local syteasessmenr) 60 g 1 TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) Li Site Selected: Date Of Selection Was A Local Site Assessment Used? Yes ? No ? Reatoon For Selection: - A-1 SrArf North Carolina Department of Cultural James G. Martin, Governor Patric Dorsey, Secretary October 29, 1992 Nicholas L. Graf Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation 310 New Bern Avenue Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442 Re: Replace Bridge #83 on SR 1418 over Fishing Creek, B-2553, Edgecombe and Halifax Counties, GS 93-0019 Dear Mr. Graf: I 'J V 2 I J? k'.sourEes= Divi'sk nIdf;Acfiwce4'a`nd History William-37 lce, Jr., Director On October 14, 1992, Robin Stancil of our staff met with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning the above project. We reported our available information on historic architectural and archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations. NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting and for our use afterwards. Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project. In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic architectural survey be conducted for this project. There are no recorded archaeological sites in the vicinity of the existing bridge; however, the flood plain soil type indicates a high probability for the presence of prehistoric archaeological resources. Please forward information concerning the location of the proposed replacement, the amount of new right-of-way necessary, and any proposed approach work so that we may complete our review. Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our concerns. The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. A-2 109 East Jones Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 C Nicholas L. Graf October 29, 1992, Page 2 Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. Sihcerely, David Brook Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer DB:slw cc: vL\J. Ward B. Church T. Padgett It y.ta S V North Carolina. Department of Cultural Resources James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History Betty Ray McCain, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director June 3, 1993 Nicholas L. Graf Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation 310 New Bern Avenue Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442 Re: Archaeological study for replacement of Bridge No. 83 over small tributary to Fishing Creek on SR 1418, Edgecombe County, Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ- 1418(3), State Project No. 8.2290501, TIP B-2553, ER 93- 8691 Dear Mr. Graf: /CE/\ JUN 0 8 1993 r ti DIVISION OF QQU HIGHWAYS ONNr-,%. Thank you for our letter of April 20, 1993, transmitting the archaeolo&ical survey report by Bill Jurgelski of your Carolina Department of Transportation concerning the above project. For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the following property is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion D: 31ED309 In general the report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior ang we concur that the replacement of this bridge over a tributary of Fishing Creek will not involve any National Register-eligible archaeological resources. The original documents and maps for the replacement of bridge 83 stated its location as being over Fishing Creek, not the small tributary. If the bridge replacement location has changed or the original documents were in error, please notify us at your earliest convenience so we may correct our records. 4 The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. y... ?. ";., ?TTy 109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 (&9 Page 2 Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. Surely, i David rook Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer DB:slw cc: L. J. Ward T. Padgett B. Jurgelski .- a..SUiFd? y? STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TP A.NSPORTATION JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C 27611-5201 June 21, 1994 Mr. Greg Punske, P.E. Federal Highway Administration P.O. Box 26806 Raleigh, NC 27611 Dear Mr. Punske, R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I SECRETARY Subject: Archaeological Study, Replacement of Bridge No. 83 over small tributary of Fishing Creek, SR 1418, Edgecombe County, TIP B-2553, BRZ-1418(3). This is in response to our telephone conversation on June 15. The SHPO's inquiry (June 3, 1993) as to which stream Bridge 83 spanned, Fishing Creek or the tributary of Fishing Creek, was answered last year in a telephone conversation with Dolores Hall, the archaeologist who reviewed the project. That served to correct their records on the bridge replacement and the project engineer was consulted to make sure our file documents were correct. 16 11 None of which affects the conclusions of the archaeological survey, which determined that no historic properties would be affected by the proposed bridge replacement. [One archaeological site was found in the vicinity but was evaluated as not significant.] The SHPO concurred with the evaluation in their June 3, 1993 letter. I talked to Dolores Hall again today and she indicated that, if you deemed it necessary for closure, she would be glad to send us a memo to affirm that this matter has been cleared up. Please let me know if any further action is necessary. Otherwise, this letter should serve as file documentation that the SHPO has been advised of the correction. Sincerely, Thomas J. Padgett Archaeology Supervisor cc: Dolores Hall, OSA, SHPO Michele James L----- A-4 0