19940338 Ver 1_Complete File_19940412

TIP PROJECT NO. K-3101
PROJECT SUMMARY FOR THE PERMIT REVIEW MEETING
2-17-94
I. Project Description: US 64, Proposed Rest Area and
Visitor Center, Columbia, Tyrrell
County, Federal Aid Project
NHS-64(13), State Project No.
9.8010720, TIP Project No. K-3101
II. Project Schedule
A. Draft document signed 1-10-94
(Draft CE, Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation for
impacts to the Columbia Historic District, and
Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation for impacts to
the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge)
B. Final document anticipated to be complete 2-94
C. Right of way acquisition underway (NC Board of
Transportation approval issued 9-93; FHWA
authorization received 1-94)
D. Letting: April, 1994
III. USFWS Coordination
A. Proposed Walter B. Jones, Jr. Center for the Sounds
1. Being planned by USFWS
2. Site: adjacent to rest area site to the south
B. Shared parking area
1. Used by Rest Area and Center for the Sounds
2. Built and maintained by NCDOT on USFWS land
C. Special Use Permit
1. Required for the joint usage of USFWS land
2. Currently being prepared by USFWS in Atlanta
IV. Required Permits
A. Section 404 Nationwide 23 (Categorical Exclusions)
B. CAMA
1. Minor Development or Major Development?
2. NCDOT cannot apply for CAMA permit until:
a. Special Use Permit is acquired
b. Right of way within the AEC is purchased
V. Conclusions
A. Only minor wetland takings
B. Tight schedule: This project is being presented to
provide advance information on this project and its
schedule in order to minimize delays in the CAMA
permit review process and the project let schedule.
a1
1
i
22 RO Newfoundland
t
5 64 7 V
Columbia+ 12 / -,
6
W odley

some :er pan Frying n'
Land ¢ 1
r Peoigrew Sr. 7Y. 21 '
)T Y R E L
1 m Neck

r
•ilkenny /
- 7
1
0
1
--- -r.-----
+36 00.00•
36. 00.00• E
A R y 1215
a
°
E
1219 '% n:
L 8 \'m 1
A 7213 $.WW sw.
138
.ao i.1e• lzts
! BULL RAY 1=1
min
>? >
Polnf
i Rlwr
'-m
COLUEMMA
ka 2. POP. 758 `$
]a74
scopggiVONO
1281 •? ?? -- __ r _ Fp4 _
'o • a0 7778 -? i
7245 ' ?
-r 40
v '$
.98 2p %* 00 fib 7112 NO LL19 U& 13 7 13572
1113
m "?! i 112 1.20 ® !p l?wls
17 rro.'v '65 .20 7115 ' ?4 ` t3ot .es
20% g ti ?? 1 13 7
JJJ3 R N 1111 4, ?. .? ?? Q
?? 111Z 9 C U P $ ON
L e0
$
r Ita6 ' •? y'Q• '$
146 r r* 1129 .p 6 13 1
Y! 1.91 ?' '.? Ilm
0 1.A3 6
1198 .
t 7148 ?+
Ges t 7y ° •?7
]1aS L'm
1.iSxS ? g
It
114,1
21 zoo
L L22
12] 6.10
? 1106
?d
r
VZ

HOLLOW
JOBOV?M
PROPOSED REST AREA SITE
SWAW
?" k Ty
N
4
l1?b
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
tip PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
A BRANCH
PROPOSED REST AREA
US 64
COLUMBIA, TYRRELL COUNTY
T. I. P. PROJECT K - 3101

e)
c `-
t ,.. 5. :t \..
Y
a
Yom.
Rr ? ? rat 1
..r
- ,. .fly j L_ 1 t r
t a \1
e
t
t+
t?) '
i „ 41' , ;{ j ? CGS
J
w ?
1
i
(`
O
Cq
li)
G
i_
m
i
h
o !j C'
? I
L!J
4-
W N
c) c (3) '
? p
Cl <7) iiS rA t!) ? 6 ;
_ ?)) >, p «S O
( ?) p C6
._,. ,., _-,; to r1.
U.I ?i I ? ? to I 1r
q_ - O o
i.lI ) L O r_o
I (1) {a
D c S_ (I.) =S
p 0) n o_l Iii ? ' >
0 o L f I J ?)
(1 D 0-
(f) 0
a) i) C.l) ) O) ;`'
se ..
NO-
y
a
I ? l ` 1
t,+
?4J.#iaA?c ? •.
. LI,
- ----
•' L ?y3
11 7n
4011S LkID
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA - - - _t
DEPARTMENT OF TP ANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS SAM HUNT
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
April 7, 1994
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
Subject: Tyrrell County, Proposed Rest Area and Visitor
Center in Columbia, Federal Aid Project No.
NHS-64(13) State Project No. 9.8010720, TIP
No. K-3101.
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.
This project has been authorized by Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA) Minor Development Permit number
94-001. This permit was issued to the North Carolina
Department of Transportation on March 14, 1994.

If you have an
information, please
Environmental Unit
BJO/dvh
cc: w/attachment
y questions or need additional
call Mr. Doug Huggett of NCDOT's
at 733-3141.
Sincerely,
B. J. O?Qu' n, PE
Assi Branch Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Mr. David Lekson, COE-Washington
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. Don Conner, PE, Division 1 Engineer
Ms. M.A. Dickens, Planning and Environmental Branch
Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and Environmental Branch
r,. . gl4339
401 ISSU
US 64
Proposed Rest Area and Visitor Center
Columbia
Tyrrell County
Federal Aid Project No. NHS-64(13)
State Project No. 9.8010720
T.I.P. Project K-3101
FINAL CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
3?r
jY
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION
FOR IMPACTS TO THE POCOSIN LAKES NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
AND
FINAL SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION
FOR IMPACTS TO THE COLUMBIA HISTORIC DISTRICT
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
Date ?r'H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
3, t
Date el cho s L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
US 64
Proposed Rest Area and Visitor Center
Columbia
Tyrrell County
Federal Aid Project No. NHS-64(13)
State Project No. 9.8010720
T.I.P. Project K-3101
r -
FINAL CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION
FOR IMPACTS TO THE POCOSIN LAKES NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
AND
FINAL SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION
FOR IMPACTS TO THE COLUMBIA HISTORIC DISTRICT
March, 1994
Documentation Prepared in the Planning and Environmental Branch by:
Mary A1' a Dickens
Project Planning Engineer
(J. ' ]son Stroud
ect Planning Unit Head
n 4
e EA i. o
6976
Lubin V. Prevatt, P.E., Assistant Manager rG',>:?,,;__?,•°C???:
?I, ?? s„ yon., n ° \• ,??
Planning and Environmental Branch ?? V pR,? o

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1. Environmental Commitments ...................... 1
............
II. Need for the Proposed Project ..................... 2
.........
A. General Description .. . ............ 2
B. ..............
Purpose of the Proposed Project ....................... 2
C. Existing Conditions .......................
. 2
D. .
..........
Traffic Volumes ......................... 3
..............
III. Description of the Proposed Action ........................ 3
A. Proposed Improvements ........................ 3
........
1. Roadway Improvements ............................. 3
2. Rest Area Building ........................ 3
3. Rest Area Parking Facility ..................... 4
B. Drainage Structures .................... 4
C. ...............
Estimated Costs ...................... 4
D. .................
Other Proposed Highway Improvements in the Area........ 4
IV. Alternatives to the Proposed Action ....................... 5
A. Recommended Alternative ............................... 5
B. "Do Nothing" Alternative .............................. 5
C. Postponement Alternative ....................... I 6

V. Anti cipated Environmental Impacts .......................... 6
A. Land Use .............................................. 6
1. Status of Local Planning Activities ............... 6
2. Existing Land Use ................................. 6
3. Future Land Use .......................... 6
........
4. Farmland ...... ... ............. 6
..................
5. Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge ............. 7
B. Historic and Cultural Resources ..................... 8
1. Archaeological Resources ......................... 8
a. Methodology ................................. 8
b. Results ................................ 8
C. Recommendations ............................. 9
2. Architecturally Historic Resources ............... 9
a. Methodology ... . .. .... ............ 10
b. Summary Findings of the Phase1 Survey....... 10
C. Conclusions ................................. 11

TABLE OF CONTENTS.(Continued)
PAGE
3. Section 4(f) Properties .......................... 12
C. Natural and Physical Resources ........................ 12
1. Study Area ....................................... 12
2. Methodology ...................................... 12
3. Biotic Resources ................................. 12
a. Terrestrial Communities .................... 13
b. Summary of Anticipated Impacts .............. 15
4. Physical Resources ............................... 15
a. Soils ................................. 15
b. Geotechnical Impacts ........................ 15
C. Water Resources .......... 15
........... .......
d. Impacts to the Existing Floodplain .......... 15
e. Summary of Anticipated Impacts .............. 16
5. Jurisdictional Issues ............................ 16
a. Waters of the United States ................. 16
i. Summary of Impacts ..................... 16
ii. Permits ............................... 16
iii. Mitigation ............................. 17
b. Rare and Protected Species .................. 17
i. Federally Protected Species ............ 17
ii. Federal Candidate Species .............. 21
iii. State Protected Species ................ 21
D. Traffic Noise and Air Quality ......................... 22
VI. Conclusions ................................................ 22
TABLES
Table 1 - Fauna Observed in the Project Vicinity ........... 13
Table 2 - Federally Protected Species Listed for
Tyrrell County ................................... 18
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Aerial Photograph
Figure 3 - Photographs of Existing Conditions
Figure 4 - Traffic Volumes

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
Figure 5 - Design Plan of Rest Area
Figure 6 - Area of Architectural Study (APE)
Figure 7 - Photographs of Parish House
Figure 8 - Rest Area Layout
APPENDICES
Appendix A - SHPO Correspondence .............. A-1 through A-4
USFWS Correspondence ............ A-5 through A-9
ACHP Correspondence ..........................A-10
Appendix B - Programmatic 4(f) Evaluation (Impacts to
the Pocosin Lakes Wildlife Refuge) ........... B-1
Appendix C - Final 4(f) Evaluation (Impacts to the
Columbia Historic District) .................. C-1
I. Description of Proposed Action .................. C-1
II. Description of Resource ......................... C-1
III. Alternatives .................................... C-2
A. "Do Nothing" Alternative .................... C-2
B. Design Alternatives ....................... C-2
C. Recommended Alternative ..................... C-2
IV. Measures to Minimize Harm ....................... C-3
V. Coordination .................................... C-3
VI. Evaluation of Feasible and Prudent Alternatives.. C-4
VII. Preferred Alternative and Mitigation Plan ....... C-4
VIII. Department of Interior Coordination ............. C-4
IX. Comments Received on the Draft Section 4(f)
Evaluation ................................. C-4
X. Conclusion ...................................... C-4
Department of Interior Correspondence ........... C-5
US 64
Proposed Rest Area and Visitor Center
Columbia
Tyrrell County
Federal Aid Project No. NHS-64(13)
State Project No. 9.8010720
T.I.P. Project K-3101
I. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
A Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Minor Development Permit will be
required. This permit will be obtained prior to the beginning of
construction.
A 401 Water Quality Certification administered through the N. C.
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources will be required.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the United States
Army Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged or fill material in
"Waters of the United States."
The subject project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion. It is
anticipated that the Provisions of the Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(A)23
(Categorical Exclusions) will apply to this project. Final permit
decisions, however, are left to the discretionary authority of the Corps
of Engineers.
The (Dr. Alexander) Parish House has been recorded by means of
photographs by the NCDOT architectural history staff, who will provide the
records to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The Parish
House will be restored in a manner consistent with its character after it
is moved to the rest area site. After the Parish House is moved, debris
will be removed from its former lot, and the lot will be graded to match
natural contours and seeded. These mitigation procedures are outlined in
the Section 4(f) Evaluation (see Appendix C, Section IV).
The NCDOT will restore and landscape disturbed areas. The NCDOT will
provide a system of sidewalks that tie in with the existing boardwalks
along the eastern Scuppernong River bank. Part of the rest area/visitor
center building will be available for use by the Center for the Sounds as
temporary office space (see Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation, Appendix
B, Section 3 under Minimization of Harm).
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid and
minimize environmental impacts. Impacts will be minimized by utilizing
Best Management Practices during construction.
2
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to build a
rest area and visitor center on US 64 just east of the Scuppernong River
in Columbia, Tyrrell County (see Figure 1). The subject project is
included in the 1994-2000 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
The TIP calls for right of way acquisition and construction to be in in
Fiscal Year 1994. The TIP funding for the rest area is $300,000 (75,000
for right of way and $225,000 for construction).
B. Purpose of the Proposed Project
The purpose of the proposed rest area and visitor center is to
enhance safety for motorists on US 64 by providing a place to stop when
fatigue impairs a driver's ability to maneuver safely.
Also, the rest area and visitor center, along with other proposed
facilities in the vicinity, is apart of an economic development plan for
the Town of Columbia and Tyrrell County. Other components of the economic
development plan include a system of boardwalks (partially completed), a
system of greenways, and the proposed Walter B. Jones, Sr. Center for the
Sounds (see the subsequent paragraph). The Town of Columbia and Tyrrell
County support the joint development of the Center for the Sounds and the
NCDOT rest area because of the anticipated economic benefits. For more
information on the locality's economic development plan, see Section
V.A.1.
The Walter B. Jones Sr. Center for the Sounds is to be a visitor
center whose main focus is environmental education, especially concerning
the Pocosin Lakes, Alligator River, and Lake Mattamuskeet national
wildlife refuges. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is
currently developing plans for the proposed Center for the Sounds to be
located on the USFWS property immediately south of the NCDOT's proposed
rest area.
C. Existing Conditions
West of the Scuppernong River, US 64 is a two-lane facility with a
24-foot pavement (12-foot lanes) and 10-foot grassed shoulders. Across
the Scuppernong River bridge, US 64 has 28 feet of clear roadway width
(two 12-foot lanes and 2-foot lateral clearance on each side). East of
the Scuppernong River, US 64 is a two-lane curb and gutter facility that
measures 44 feet face to face. The existing right of way east of the
river is 84 feet, symmetrical with respect to the centerline. The posted
speed on US 64 is 55 mph west of the bridge; it is 35 mph across the
bridge and east of the bridge.
US 64 in the project vicinity is part of the National Highway System.
In the Functional Classification System, this segment of US 64 is
classified as a Rural Principal Arterial - Other.
3
The proposed rest area/visitor center site is a cleared, vacant area
bounded to the north by US 64, to the west by the Scuppernong River, to
the south by land owned by the USFWS, and to the east by the Foodway
Grocery property (see Figure 2). SR 1238 (Ludington Drive) transects the
proposed rest area site. SR 1238 has an 18-foot pavement, 5-foot grassed
shoulders, and 45 feet of right of way.
Photographs of the proposed rest area site are shown in Figure 3.
D. Traffic Volumes
Approximately 7200 vehicles per day (vpd) are anticipated to be using
US 64 in the rest area vicinity in 1994. Approximately 1200 vpd are
anticipated to be using Ludington Drive in 1994 after the completion of
the proposed rest area. In 2014, 17,200 vpd are expected to be using
US 64, and 2800 vpd are expected to be using Ludington Drive. Projected
traffic volumes and turning movements in the project vicinity are shown in
Figure 4. The 2014 volumes reflect traffic using the completed Walter B.
Jones Sr. Center for the Sounds (for more information on the Center for
the Sounds, see section II.B.).
III. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Proposed Improvements
The project calls for the construction of a rest area and visitor
center adjacent to US 64 in Columbia.
1. Roadway Improvements
In order to allow for the rest area to be constructed entirely
on the west side of SR 1238 (Ludington Drive), it is proposed that
Ludington Drive be realigned as part of the subject project. The
northern 215-foot portion of Ludington is to be shifted to the east,
thereby removing the existing reverse curve (see Figure 2). The
realigned Ludington Drive is to intersect US 64 approximately 100
feet east of its existing intersection.
No improvements to US 64 are recommended as a part of this
project.
2. Rest Area Building
The subject project calls for the relocation of the Parish House
of the St. Andrews' Episcopal Church (currently located on Road
Street in Columbia) to the rest area site, where it will be renovated
and used as the visitor center. Rest room facilities are to be
provided in a separate, new building adjacent to the visitor center
(see Figure 8). The Parish House is discussed further in section
V.2.A.b. and in Appendix C, Section II.
4
3. Rest Area Parking Facility
Parking for the rest area is to be built partially on land to be
acquired by the NCDOT for the rest area site and partially on the
USFWS land to the south (see Figures 2 and 5). The portion of the
parking area on the USFWS land will be shared between the rest area
and the Center for the Sounds once the Center is complete. A
Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation for the use of these lands and
USFWS lands located east of Ludington Drive (public lands designated
as a wildlife refuge) has been prepared and is included as Appendix B
of this report.
B. Drainage Structures
The subject project involves or requires no major drainage
structures. The drainage will be accomplished through the use of curb
openings, swales lined with paving blocks, and natural overland drainage
patterns.
C. Estimated Costs
The project is estimated to cost $165,000 for right of way and
$650,000 for construction (including the cost of moving and restoring the
Parish House) for a total of $815,000. The funding included in the
1994-2000 TIP is $75,000 for right of way and $225,000 for construction
for a total of $300,000. The total estimated cost for the subject project
is $515,000 more than the TIP funding.
D. Other Proposed Highway Improvement Projects in the Area
TIP Project R-2548 calls for the multi-lane widening of US 64 from
NC 45 near Plymouth in Washington County to just west of the Scuppernong
River near Columbia in Tyrrell County. The Environmental Assessment for
TIP Project R-2548 is underway, and right of way acquisition and
construction are scheduled to begin in Fiscal Years 1996 and 1997,
respectively.
TIP Project R-2545 calls for the multi-lane widening of US 64 from
just west of the Scuppernong River near Columbia (Tyrrell County) to just
east of the Alligator River in Dare County. Planning studies for this
project are scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 1999, and the project is
scheduled for post-year right of way and construction.
TIP Project R-2545 involves the section of US 64 that is adjacent to
the proposed rest area and visitor center site. In order that TIP Project
K-3101 could be planned without conflict with future TIP Project R-2545, a
preliminary investigation was conducted for Project R-2545. The NCDOT, as
a result of the preliminary investigation, anticipates replacing the
existing two-lane bridge over the Scuppernong River with a 5-lane
structure on same location with a shift in centerline to the south.
Southside widening is recommended because of the Tyrrell County Veterans'
Memorial Park located just north of the existing structure on the west
bank of the Scuppernong River. Replacement of the existing structure with
5
a 5-lane bridge on the same location will provide construction room and
will allow for the maintenance of traffic during construction. It is
anticipated that the replacement structure will provide the same vertical
and horizontal waterway clearances as the existing structure, 14 and 35
feet, respectively. NCDOT has coordinated with the Town of Columbia,
Tyrrell County, and the U.S. Coast Guard regarding these proposed
clearances. Because of the minimal boat traffic currently using the
Scuppernong River south of the existing bridge, the proximity of the
bridge to headwaters, and the unlikelihood of any future development south
(upstream) of the bridge, it was agreed that the existing clearances are
anticipated to be sufficient. Additional coordination with the Coast
Guard will be required once planning studies for R-2545 begin. At the
east end of the Scuppernong River bridge, the roadway will begin a
transition to a symmetrical widening scenario to be maintained through
Columbia.
Based upon this anticipated cross-section for US 64 and the
anticipated vertical clearance of the proposed Scuppernong River bridge,
the NCDOT determined the anticipated right of way limits for Project
R-2545. The NCDOT currently owns 84 feet of right of way in the vicinity
of the east end of the bridge, and it is anticipated that an additional 18
feet of right of way will be needed to the south of US 64 to allow for the
5-lane widening and for the transition from south-side widening to
symmetrical widening. These anticipated right of way limits for TIP
Project R-2545 were considered during the planning of TIP Project K-3101
so that the proposed rest area and visitor center will not be affected
when US 64 is widened to a multi-lane facility.
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Recommended Alternative
The recommended alternative is to build a rest area and visitor
center south of US 64 on the east bank of the Scuppernong River in
Columbia. This alternative includes the realignment of Ludington Drive,
the relocation and restoration of the St. Andrews' Parish House, and the
construction of parking areas on both NCDOT right of way and the USFWS
property to be shared between the rest area and the Walter B. Jones Sr.
Center for the Sounds.
This alternative is anticipated to improve safety on US 64 and to
provide economic benefits by attracting tourists. The rest area fits into
the locality's economic development plan and is favored by the town and
county. For these reasons, this alternative is recommended.
B. "Do Nothing" Alternative
While the "do nothing" alternative would avoid the limited
environmental impacts caused by the recommended alternative, it would not
provide the benefits of the proposed improvements. Therefore, the "do
nothing" alternative is not recommended.
6
C. Postponement Alternative
This alternative involves postponing the proposed improvements to
some indefinite time in the future. This alternative would not reduce the
environmental effects, but it would only delay them, while also delaying
the benefits the rest area will provide. In fact, postponing the project,
by allowing time for more development to occur, may actually increase the
environmental impact of the rest area.
V. ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Land Use
1. Status of Local Planning Activities
The proposed improvement is located within the municipal limits
of the Town of Columbia. The Town's primary planning document is its
1990 Land Use Plan, prepared in conjunction with Tyrrell County's
1990 Lan Use Pan Update. The Town also adopted a waterfront
revita-ration plan titled Moving Toward the Future Together: Tyrrell
County and The Town of Columbia, 1989. The Town has no zoning
ordinance or subd i?v sion regulations.
2. Existing Land Use
The site of the proposed Rest Area is a vacant lot located on
the east bank of the Scuppernong River in the commercial area of
Columbia. A public boardwalk along the river was recently con-
structed adjacent to the site.
3. Future Land Use
According to the 1990 Land Use Plan Update, the entire Town of
Columbia, including the proposed rest area site, is classified as
Developed. The Developed class provides for intensive development
and re-development of existing municipalities.
The Town is actively pursuing tourism as a means to improve the
area's economy. The Town's waterfront revitalization plan documents
its goal of attracting tourism to Columbia. Plans include the
construction of a visitor center associated with the Pocosin Lakes
National Wildlife Refuge, a public marina, and private development of
restaurants and small hotels along the waterfront. One element of
the plan, a boardwalk along the riverbank, has already been
constructed.
4. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) requires all federal
agencies or their representatives to consider the impact of land
acquisition and construction projects on prime and important farmland
soils, as designated by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. Land
that is developed or planned for development by the local
governmental authority is exempt from the requirements of the Act.
The site of the proposed rest area is a vacant lot in an urbanized
area. Therefore, the FPPA does not apply.
5. Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
The subject project will involve the use of land from the
Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, owned by the USFWS (see
Figure 2). The Pocosin Lakes Refuge, which is composed of many
noncontiguous tracts, has a total size of approximately 113,000
acres. The USFWS tract to be affected by this project is
approximately 4 acres in size, and this project proposes to use
approximately 0.6 acre of it. The parking area to be built on part
of this land will be shared with the proposed USFWS Center for the
Sounds. The NCDOT has coordinated with the USFWS regarding this use,
and the USFWS is in agreement with the subject project (see
concurrence letter, page B-7). The Pocosin Lakes Refuge Manager did
raise some concerns about the proposed rest area design after the
Draft Categorical Exclusion and the Programmatic Section 4(f)
Evaluation for impacts to the wildlife refuge were approved (see
letter on pages A-5 through A-7. The NCDOT met with him to discuss
these concerns, and the USFWS has subsequently concurred with the
proposed design (see letter on page A-8). The NCDOT will acquire
rights to be on the USFWS land by a right of entry until such time
that a perpetual easement, a special use permit, or a federal land
transfer is obtained.
Since this project necessitates the use of a minor amount of
land from the wildlife refuge and meets criteria set forth in the
Federal Register (December 23, 1986), a Programmatic Section 4(f)
Evaluation satisfies the requirements of Section 4(f) of the
Department of Transportation Act of 1966. The Programmatic Section
4(f) evaluation for the subject project is found in Appendix B of
this document.
The following alternatives, which avoid use of the wildlife
refuge, have been fully evaluated: (a) do nothing; (2) improve the
highway without using the adjacent wildlife refuge; and (3) build an
improved facility on new location without using the wildlife refuge.
These alternatives were not found to be feasible and prudent.
All possible planning to minimize harm to the wildlife refuge
has been incorporated into this project. The officials having
jurisdiction over the Section 4(f) property have agreed, in writing,
with the assessment of impacts resulting from the use of the Section
4(f) property and with the mitigation measures to be provided (see
Appendix B, page B-5).
Proposed mitigation measures include the following:
* Restoration and landscaping of disturbed areas - The NCDOT will
plant vegetation, including Leyland Cypress, Willow Oak,
Daylilies, Dogwood, and Pampas Grass, on the subject 4(f) land.
8
* The project will provide a system of sidewalks that tie in with
the existing boardwalk along the eastern Scuppernong River bank.
(Since a portion of the existing boardwalk extends along the
western boundary of the Pocosin Lakes Refuge, the proposed
sidewalks with the existing boardwalk will provide pedestrian
access from the rest area and visitor center to the Refuge.)
* Part of the rest area/visitor center building will be available
for use by the Center for the Sounds as temporary office space.
B. Historic and Cultural Resources
1. Archaeological Resources
a. Methodology
An evaluation of archaeological resources in the project
area was consistent with guidelines for survey techniques issued
by the Secretary of Interior (48 FR 44716). Areas with the
potential for prehistoric and historic site locations were
covered by pedestrian survey and shovel testing. Areas with
very low probability for archaeological site locations, such as
lands disturbed by modern development (especially commercial,
residential, and pine plantations), steep slopes (above 20%
grade), wetlands, and narrow stream floodplains, were excluded.
For this study, a "site" is defined by the following
parameters. The minimum threshold for a prehistoric site is a
total of at least three artifacts found in close proximity as to
suggest a definite spatial relationship. The same definition
applies to a historic archaeological site with the exception
that it also be old enough to be considered for eligibility for
the National Register of Historic Places.
Field work was conducted on July 29 and September 7, 1993
and took a total of seven person-hours. Approximately 90% of
the study area was subjected to a pedestrian inspection, and two
shovel tests were conducted on the vacant lot east of Ludington
Drive.
b. Results
The archaeological investigation conducted for this project
resulted in locating a concrete perimeter foundation, a concrete
slab, and a surface scatter of recent material at the proposed
location of the visitor's center. The position of the
foundations corresponds with two structures noted on the USGS
Columbia West topographic quadrangle (1953).
Shovel testing on the portion of the project site situated
between Ludington Drive and Foodland Grocery found a concrete
slab at 53 cm below the surface. Overlaying this slab was a
twentieth century fill zone of mottled clay loam and concrete
block fragments. The position of the slab correlates with a
structure noted on the USGS topographic map.
9
The upper 50 cm of a shovel test placed south of the sewer
line, that diagonally crosses the vacant lot, exposed two
deposition zones of fill overlaying an organic zone (50-73 cm)
and gray fine silty sand (73-95 cm). Cultural materials noted,
but not recovered, in the fill zone (50-73 cm) were brick
fragments, coal, and machine-made glass. Materials recovered
from the organic zone were one wire nail, machine-made bottle
glass, and brick fragments.
The archaeological inspection of the study area failed to
locate significant cultural materials in the area proposed for
parking on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lands. A walkover
survey in the proposed parking lot area found standing water and
no evidence of cultural materials on the surface.
C. Recommendations
An archaeological assessment of the project area resulted
in the location of twentieth century foundations very likely
associated with the storage structures noted on the 1953 USGS
topographic map. This interpretation is supported by information
from local residents who claim that several warehouses were
previously located in the area of investigation. Shovel testing
in the proposed construction area also revealed that a low-lying
wetland at the intersection of Branning Street and Ludington
Drive was filled during the twentieth century.
The archaeological inspection of the proposed project area
found evidence of twentieth-century activity with in the area of
potential effect. These findings have limited potential to yield
significant information concerning the history of coastal North
Carolina; accordingly, they were determined to be not
significant and therefore ineligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places. No further archaeological work is
recommended for this project. The SHPO has agreed with this
determination, and the concurrence letter is found on page A-1
of the Appendix.
2. Architecturally Historic Resources
The subject project will involve moving the 1880s St. Andrew's
Episcopal Church Parish House (Dr. Alexander House) from its present
site on Road Street in Columbia to the proposed rest area site at the
intersection of US 64 and Ludington Drive. Figure 6 shows the
locations of the church and the Parish House, and Figure 7 shows
photographs of the existing conditions of the Parish House. The
Parish House will be renovated to serve as a visitor center, and a
detached rest area wing will be constructed to the rear of the
building (see Figure 8). The area of potential effect (APE) was
determined to be the approximately one-acre site where the house will
be relocated.
The APE, shown in Figure 6, is bounded by US 64 on the north,
the Scuppernong River on the west, the USFWS land on the south, and
Foodland Grocery on the east.
10
The NCDOT architectural historians conducted an architectural
survey of the project site and the St. Andrew's Parish House on
August 9, 1993. The findings of their investigation are presented
herein pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Regulations codified at 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 potentially eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be given an opportunity to comment.
a. Methodology
The survey was conducted and the architectural report
compiled by the NCDOT in accordance with the provisions of
Federal Highway Administration Technical Advisory T 6640.8A
(Guidance for Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section
4(f) Documents); the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and
Guidelines for Archaeological and Historic Preservation (48 FR
44716) ; 36 CFR Par 800; 36 CFR Part 60; and Phase 1
(Reconnaissance) Survey Procedures for Historic Architectural
Resources established by the NCDOT.
Tyrrell County has not received a systematic survey of
architectural resources, and only one short history of the
county has been published. The Parish (Dr. Alexander) House is
at present included as a contributing structure in the National
Register Nomination for the Columbia Historic District currently
being prepared. The boundaries of the Columbia Historic
District are shown in Figure 6.
b. Summary Findings of the Phase 1 Survey
The site selected for the rest area at the intersection of
US 64 and Ludington Drive on the east bank of the Scuppernong
River is presently devoid of above-ground architectural
resources. The site includes three vacant parcels, bounded by
US 64, the Scuppernong River, a wooded parcel to the south owned
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and a modern commercial
structure. The boardwalk along the site's 156 feet of river
frontage was recently completed. The Branning Manufacturing
Company of Edenton operated a large planing mill on the site
dating from the 1890s to the twentieth century. Prior to. the
Branning sawmill, Jim Tweedy's fish houses, or possibly the
Spruill Mill, occupied the site. The vacant parcel to the west
of Ludington Drive was formerly the location of the Pledger
Hardware Store.
The NCDOT will restore the Parish House for use as the
subject Visitor Center. The rear addition of the house will not
be retained due to substantial roof damage and its later date.
The NCDOT will construct a detached wing to the rear of the
house for the rest room facilities.
11
The Parish House is currently a contributing member to the
Columbia Historic District (see Figure 6). The Columbia
Historic District was determined to be eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places, and a nomination for the District
is currently being prepared.
C. Conclusions
Following the relocation of the Parish (Dr. Alexander)
House to its new site south of US 64, the integrity of location
and setting for the house will have been significantly
compromised. The Parish House is being removed from a
residential area of Columbia to a location historically
associated with commercial and industrial usage. The
uncharacteristic orientation of the house towards the river also
compromises the integrity of the setting of the building. For
these reasons, it appears that the Parish (Dr. Alexander) House
will not be eligible for the National Register when located on
its new site. The SHPO concurs with this determination of
eligibility (see page A-2 of the Appendix).
Since the Parish House is a contributing member of the
Columbia Historic District, the removal of the house from the
district constitutes an effect on the district. However, St.
Andrews' Episcopal Church plans to raze the house if it is not
moved for use by the subject project. Accordingly, moving the
house from the historic district to the proposed rest area site
constitutes the most feasible way of preserving the house.
Therefore, it has been determined that the project will have No
Adverse Effect on the Columbia Historic District.
The NCDOT has recorded the Parish House by means of
photographs. These records will be provided to the SHPO. The
house will be renovated in a manner consistent with its
character. After the house is moved, its former lot will be
cleaned up and landscaped (see Section IV of Appendix C).
The SHPO has concurred that the removal of the Parish House
from the Columbia Historic District will constitute a No Adverse
Effect (see page A-2 of the Appendix) on the District.
Documentation of the finding of No Adverse Effect was submitted
to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the
Advisory Council has concurred with that determination (see page
A-10). In addition, the Columbia Historic District lies outside
the APE of the proopsed construction. The SHPO has concurred
that the construction of the subject project will not affect the
Columbia Historic District (see letter, page A-4). This
coordination fully satisfies 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.
12
C.
3. Section 4f) Properties
Since the Parish House is a contributing member to the Columbia
Historic District from which it is being removed, and since the
Columbia Historic District has been determined to be eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, a Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation
of impacts to the district has been prepared and is included in
Section VI of this report.
Natural and Physical Resources
1. Study Area
Columbia is a small, rural town that lies in the Coastal Plain
Physiographic Province. At the time of the site visit, the study
area was being used by boaters as a parking area. Along the water's
edge is a boardwalk, part of which lies adjacent to the study area.
Topography in the project vicinity is gently sloping. Elevation in
the study area is approximately 5 feet above mean sea level (msl).
2. Methodology
An aerial photograph (scale 1:1200), a U.S. Geological Survey
quadrant map (Columbia West), the Tyrrell County Soil Survey (Soil
Conservation Service), National Wetland Inventory -Mapping (Columbia
West), and the hydric soils list were utilized during in-house
research, as was the Environmental Sensitivity Base Map of Tyrrell
County (produced by the N.C. Center for Geographic Information and
Analysis), dated December 1992. A site visit was made on August 19,
1993 to inventory natural resources and determine wetland locations
and boundaries.
Information on the occurrence of federal and state protected
species was obtained from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
and the USFWS. Water resource information was obtained from
publications of the Division of Environmental Management.
3. Biotic Resources
A terrestrial ecosystem will be impacted by the proposed
construction. Descriptions of flora and fauna observed, as well as
those which are likely to occur in each community, are presented
below.
Common and scientific names are provided for each species
listed; in subsequent references to the same organism, only the
common name is given. The following is a list of fauna observed in
the study area. Fauna were observed by any one of the following
methods: visual observation, presence of spoor or scat, and detection
by call or song.
13
Table 1.
Fauna Observed in the Project Vicinity
COMM NAME
slider
mallard
American crow
northern cardinal
gull
house finch
garden spider
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Chyrsemys sp.
Anas platyrhynchos
Corvus brachyrh_ynchos
Cardinalis cardinalis
Larus sp.
Carpodacus mexicanus
Ar io a sp.
EVIDENCE
visual
visual
visual
song
visual
call, visual
visual
a. Terrestrial Communities
A disturbed biotic community comprises the study area.
This community is described below.
Disturbed
No trees or shrubs are present in the study area except in
two areas: a line of cultivated crepe myrtle trees
(Lagerstoemia indica) along US 64 and a clump of black willow
(Salix nigra) shrubs (covered with climbing hempweed, Mikania
scandens) at the northeast corner of the site. The vegetation
is disturbed from frequent mowing and vehicle activity. The
vegetation is dominated by graminoids including fescue (Festuca
sp.), crabgrass (Digitaria sp.), and bermuda grass (Cynodon
dactylon). Exposed soil is present sporadically. Spotty
occurrences of nutsedge (C erus sp.), red clover (Trifolium
pratense), plantain (Plantago sp.), milkweed (Asclepias sp.),
dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), dandelion (Taraxacum
officinale), nightshade (Solanum carolinense), partridge pea
(Cassia fasciculata), and dayflower (Commelina communis) are
mixed in among the graminoids. Sneezeweed (Helenium amarum) is
a common annual at the site east of Ludington Drive. Cow itch
Cam psis radicans) and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
quinquefolia) vines are present but, because of the amount of
disturbance, are found in short segments on the ground.
Mammalian fauna is anticipated to be minimal in the study
area because of minimal cover. Two species likely to occur
include the Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) and the
hispid cotton rat (Si modon hispidus). The.Virginia opossum,
which consumes both plant and animal matter, is a nocturnal
species that may travel through this habitat when moving between
den sights or foraging excursions. The hispid cotton rat
typically inhabits grasslands, weedy fields, and vine dominated
sites with adequate cover.
14
Resident amphibians and reptiles are expected to be few
because of a lack of canopy and cover. Species occurring in the
study area must be able to tolerate exposure to sunlight (since
a canopy is lacking) and minimal cover because logs, stones, and
building materials are lacking. Outside the study area, in the
location of the future Center for the Sounds, is a open stand of
trees with a taller, less disturbed herbaceous layer. The
six-lined racerunner (Cnemidophorus sexlineatus) may be found in
the study area as a consequence of juxtaposition of this site.
The six-lined racerunner inhabits open, usually sandy areas and
takes cover under clumps of grass or underground burrows. The
eastern glass lizard (Ophisaurus ventralis), which is frequently
found "under rubbish in fields and vacant lots near ponds,
marshes, and estuaries," may also occur in the study area as
well as the slender glass lizard (Ophisaurus attenuatus), which
inhabits grassy fields, woodland margins, and other open,
usually dry places. The southeastern five-lined skink (Eumeces
inexpectatus) occurs in disturbed habitats such as recently
timbered lands, old home sites, and beach areas. This species
may also utilize the study area.
Sliders (Chrysemys sp.) were observed in the Scuppernong
River during the field survey, but they are unlikely to be found
in the study area because of unsuitable habitat.
Avian fauna observed in the project vicinity include
mallard (Anal platyrhynchos), American crow (Corvus
brach_yrhynchos), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), gull
(Larus sp.), and house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus). Of these
species, the mallard and gull were observed in the Scuppernong
River and may utilize the study area to sun and forage.
Several wading species, such as little blue heron (E retta
caerulea), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), and Canada goose
Branta canadensis), are common near a water resource and may
utilize the study area. In addition, the common blue jay
(Cyanocitta cristata), American robin (Turdus mi ratorius), and
the European starling (Sturnus vulgaris) are all likely to occur
in the project area.
b. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Preliminary estimates of biotic community impacts to the
Disturbed community are approximately 1.5 acres.
The study area supports minimal wildlife and a disturbed
plant community. Terrestrial organisms that currently utilize
the study area are accustomed to disturbance. Project
construction (especially parking lots) may displace these
species. Non-mobile organisms will be directly impacted by
clearing/grading activities.
15
4.
No construction is expected in the Scuppernong River;
however, erosion control measures will be enacted to minimize
sedimentation and contain sediment within the study area.
Erosion control measures will result in minimal sedimentation
impacts to the river.
Physical Resources
a. Soils
Soils information was
Survey (Soil Conservation
supports one soil mapping
rarely flooded. This unit
drained. Slope on mapped
Tomotley fine sandy loam
sediments.
obtained from the Tyrrell County Soil
Service, 1988). The project area
unit, the Tomotley fine sandy loam,
is classified as Hydric and is poorly
sites ranges from 0 to 2 percent.
;oil formed in fluvial and marine
b. Geotechnical Impacts
Staff of the Geotechnical Unit of the NCDOT visited the
subject project site on August 20, 1993 in order to evaluate
geotechnical impacts and hazardous material involvement. During
the visit, two hand auger borings were advanced to depths of 5
feet in order to determine the suitability of foundation
materials present. From these borings, two composite soil
samples were collected and tested for the presence of hazardous
materials. The laboratory results indicate that no such
materials are found in measurable concentrations at the site.
Bases upon these sample results and the quality of soils found
at the site, no environmental nor geotechnical problems are
anticipated.
C. Water Resources
The project is located adjacent to the Scuppernong River.
No impact is anticipated to this water resource.
Neither High Quality Waters, Outstanding Resource Waters,
nor waters classified WS-I or WS-II are located in the study
area, nor within one mile of the study area. The Division of
Environmental Management (1993) has assigned the Scuppernong
River a" best usage classification of SC (Index number
30-14-4-(9)). An SC water is defined as a tidal salt water with
a best usage of aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, and secondary recreation.
d. Impacts to the 100-Year Floodplain
The Town of Columbia is a participant in the National Flood
Insurance Regular Program. The existing floodplain is urban and
developed; however, there are no buildings in the project
vicinity with floor elevations below the 100-year flood level
The proposed project will involve only minor drainage work and
will not adversely affect the existing floodplain.
16
e. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
During construction, the following erosion control measures
are recommended: 1) Identification and containment of non-point
sediment sources that drain into the Scuppernong River and 2)
Adherence to Best Management Practices and Sedimentation Control
guidelines during the construction phase of the project.
5. Jurisdictional Issues
a. Waters of the United States
The Corps of Engineers is responsible for regulating
activities in "Waters of the U.S." in regards to highway
projects based on the following laws: Section 10 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 USC 403) and Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344) Any action that proposes to
impact "Waters of the U.S." falls under the jurisdiction of the
Corps of Engineers and a federal permit is required. Generally,
"Waters of the U.S." is defined as navigable waters, their
tributaries, and associated wetlands and subdivided into
"wetlands" and "surface waters".
Jurisdictional wetlands, as defined by 33 CFR 328.3, are
those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground
water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and
that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated conditions.
Criteria for wetland determinations are described in the "Corps
of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environmental
Laboratory, 1987). Any action that proposes to place fill into
these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers under the Provisions of the Clean Water Act (33 USC
1344).
The Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) is a state
management plan established in 1974 to promote rational and
coordinated management of coastal resources. Two mechanisms
accomplish this purpose: the formulation of local land use plans
and the designation of areas of environmental concern (or
AEC's). Types of development activities in AEC's are regulated
by the CAMA.
i. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
The subject project will impact a small pocket of
wetlands located along the southern boundary of the
southern parking lot (see Figure 5). The total area of
wetlands anticipated to be impacted by the subject project
is 0.08 acre.
ii. Permits
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a))23) is likely to
be applicable for the proposed construction. This permit
authorizes any activities undertaken, assisted, authorized,
17
regulated, funded, or financed, in whole or in part, by
another federal agency or department where (1) that agency
or department has determined pursuant to the Council on
Environmental Quality regulation for implementing the
procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy
Act that the activity, work, or discharge is Categorically
Excluded from environmental documentation because it is
included within a category of actions which neither
individually nor cumulatively has a significant effect on
the human environment and where (2) the office of the Chief
of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or
department's application for the CE and concurs with that
determination.
The final permit decision rests with the Corps of
Engineers.
The project is located within a county that is under
the jurisdiction of the CAMA. The subject project is
located adjacent to the Scuppernong River in an area
classified as an Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) by the
CAMA. An Estuarine Shoreline AEC will be impacted by the
subject project. The CAMA jurisdiction for an Estuarine
Shoreline AEC extends 75 feet from the mean high water
line.
The portion of the project that falls within this area
will require a CAMA minor development permit.
iii. Mitigation
Only minor impacts to jurisdictional wetlands or
surface waters will occur from the proposed construction;
therefore, it is not anticipated that any mitigation will
be required by the Corps of Engineers.
b. Rare and Protected Species
Plant and animal species classified as Endangered (E) or
Threatened (T) are protected under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 USC 1531-1543). Species classified with
the Proposed prefix indicate a species which has been formally
proposed for listing as either Endangered (PE) or Threatened
(PT).
The USFWS and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP) were consulted to determine if any protected species are
documented in the study area.
i. Federally Protected Species
Four federally protected species are listed by the
USFWS for Tyrrell County as of July 9, 1993. These species
are listed in Table 2. A discussion of each species
follows.
18
Table 2. Federally Protected Species Listed for
Tyrrell County
COMMON NAME
BTr Ts
Red-cockaded woodpecker
Reptiles
Kemp's ridley sea turtle
Loggerhead turtle
Green sea turtle
SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Picoides borealis E
Lepidochelys kempi E
Caretta caretta T
Chelonia mydas T
Definition
E (Endangered): A taxon that is threatened with extinction throughout all
or a significant portion of its range.
T (Threatened): A taxon that is likely to become endangered in the
foreseeable future.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) E
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
Distribution in N.C.: Anson, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen,
Brunswick, Camden, Carteret, Chatham, Columbus,
Craven, Cumberland, Dare, Duplin, Forsyth, Gates,
Halifax, Harnett, Hertford, Hoke, Hyde, Iredell,
Johnston, Jones, Lee, Lenoir, Montgomery, Moore, Nash,
New Hanover, Northhampton, Onslow, Orange, Pamlico,
Pender, Perquimans, Pitt, Richmond, Robeson, Sampson,
Scotland, Tyrrell, Wake, Wayne, and Wilson Counties.
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) once occurred from
New Jersey to southern Florida and west to eastern Texas.
It occurred inland in Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas,
Oklahoma, and Missouri. The RCW is currently found only in
coastal states of its historic range and in southeastern
Oklahoma and southern Arkansas. North Carolina populations
are found in the sandhills and the southern coastal plain.
The adult RCW's plumage is entirely black and white
except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in
the male. The back is.black and white with horizontal
stripes and the breast and underside is white with streaked
flanks. There is a large, white cheek patch surrounded by
the black cap, nape, and throat.
RCW's use open, old growth stands of southern pines,
particularly longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging
and nesting habitat. Suitable habitat must contain at
least 50% pine and lack a thick understory. These birds
19
nest exclusively in trees that are equal to or greater than
60 years old that are contiguous with pine-dominated stands
at least 30 years of age. The foraging range of the RCW is
0.5 mile and must be contiguous with suitable nesting
sites.
RCW's nest exclusively in living pine trees that are
usually infected with the fungus that causes red-heart
disease. Cavities are located in colonies from 12 to 100
feet above the ground and average 30 to 50 feet high. They
can be identified by a large incrustation of running sap
that surrounds the tree. This is, arguably, used as a
defense against possible predators. A clan of woodpeckers
usually consists of one breeding pair and the offspring
from previous years. The eggs are laid in April, May, and
June and hatch 38 days later. Clutch size is from 3 to 5
eggs. All members of the clan share in raising the young.
Red-cockaded woodpeckers feed mainly on insects but may
feed on seasonal wild fruits.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect
The study area does not support suitable habitat for
the red-cockaded woodpecker. No impacts to the
red-cockaded woodpecker will occur from proposed
construction.
Lepidochelys kem ii (Kemp's ridley sea turtle) E
Animal Family: Cheloniidae
Date Listed: 12/2/70
Distribution in N.C.: Beaufort, Bertie, Brunswick, Camden,
Carteret, Chowan, Craven, Currituck, Dare, Hyde, New
Hanover, Onslow, Pamlico, Pasquotank, Pender,
Perquimans, Tyrrell, and Washington Counties.
Adult Kemp's ridley sea turtles inhabit the Gulf of
Mexico, with immature turtles ranging from the east coast
as far north as Massachusetts. This turtle is an
infrequent visitor to the North Carolina coast and does not
nest here. The only nesting area for these turtles is a
single beach in Mexico.
The Kemp's ridley's sea turtle is the smallest of the
sea turtles that visit the North Carolina coast. It
measures 2 to 3 feet in length and weighs from 79 to 110
pounds. These turtles have a triangular shaped head and a
hooked beak with large crushing surfaces. It has a
heart-shaped carapace that is nearly as wide as it is long
with the first of five costal plates touching the nuchal
plates. Adult turtles have white or yellow plastrons with
a gray and olive green carapace. The head and flippers are
gray. Hatchlings are all black.
20
Nesting was confined to 14.9 miles of beach between
Barra del Tordo and Ostioal in the state of Tamaulipas,
Mexico. However, a nest was recently documented (summer
1992) on Long Beach, North Carolina. The Kemp's ridley sea
turtle is found on beach sections backed up by extensive
swamps or large bodies of open water having seasonal narrow
ocean connections and a well defined elevated dune area.
Kemp's ridley sea turtles live in shallow coastal and
' estuarine waters, in association with red mangrove trees.
Ridley's sea turtles feed on crabs, shrimp, snails, sea
urchins, sea stars, medusae, fish, and marine plants.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect.
The subject project will not impact the Scuppernong
River. No suitable habitat for the Kemp's ridley sea
turtle is located in the study area. No impacts to the
Kemp's ridley sea turtle will occur from proposed
construction.
Caretta caretta (loggerhead sea turtle) T
Animal Family: Cheloniidae
Date Listed: 7/28/78
Distribution in N.C.: Beaufort, Bettie, Brunswick, Camden,
Carteret, Chowan, Craven, Currituck, Dare, Hyde, New
Hanover, Onslow, Pamlico, Pasquotank, Pender,
Perquimans, Tyrrell, and Washington Counties.
The loggerhead sea turtle nests on suitable beaches
from Ocracoke Inlet, North Carolina to Florida and on the
Gulf Coast states. There are also major nesting grounds on
the eastern coast of Australia. It lives worldwide in
temperate to subtropical waters.
Adult loggerhead sea turtles weigh between 170 to 500
pounds and are 3 to 4 feet in length. This turtle can be
distinguished from other sea turtles by its unique
reddish-brown color. The loggerhead is characterized by a
large head and blunt jaws. Otherwise they have 5 or more
costal plates with the first touching the nuchal and 3 to 4
bridge scutes.
Loggerhead sea turtles nest nocturnally between May
and September on isolated beaches that are characterized by
fine grained sediments. It is mainly carnivorous and feeds
on small marine animals.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect.
The subject project does not support suitable habitat
for the loggerhead sea turtle. No impacts to the
Scuppernong River are anticipated from proposed
construction. No impacts to the loggerhead sea turtle will
occur.
21
Chelonia m_ydas (green sea turtle) T
Animal Family: Cheloniidae
Date Listed: 7/28/78
Distribution in N.C.: Beaufort, Bertie, Brunswick, Camden,
Carteret, Chowan., Craven, Currituck, Dare, Hyde, New
Hanover, Onslow, Pamlico, Pasquotank, Pender,
Perquimans, Tyrrell, and Washington Counties.
The green sea turtle is found in temperate and
tropical oceans and seas. It ranges as far north as
Massachusetts on the east coast and British Columbia on the
west coast. Nesting in is limited to the east coast of
Florida.
The distinguishing factors found in the green sea
turtle are the single clawed flippers and a single pair of
elongated scales between the eyes. This turtle has a small
head and grows to a size of 3 to 5 feet) and a weight of
220 to 650 pounds. It has a strongly serrate lower jaw and
only four pairs of pleural scutes.
The green sea turtle can be found in shallow waters.
They are attracted to lagoons, reefs, bays, Mangrove
swamps, and inlets where an abundance of marine grasses can
be found; marine grasses are the principle food source for
the green sea turtle. These turtles require beaches with
minimal disturbances and a sloping platform for nesting.
They do not nest in North Carolina.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect.
No suitable habitat for the green sea turtle is
located in the study area. Proposed construction does not
impact the Scuppernong River. No impacts to the green sea
turtle will occur from proposed construction.
ii. Federal Candidate Species
One species is listed by the USFWS as candidate
species (C2) in Tyrrell County; the Waccamaw killifish
(Fundulus waccamensis). A C2 species is defined as a taxon
for which there is some evidence of vulnerability, but for
which there are not enough data to support listing as
endangered or threatened at this time. Candidate species
are not afforded federal protection, but their status may
be upgraded in the future. The Waccamaw killifish is only
found in large natural lakes such as Lake Waccamaw and Lake
Phelps. No impacts to the Waccamaw killifish will occur.
iii. State Protected Species
Species identified as Threatened, Endangered, or
Special Concern are afforded state protection under the
State Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Species of Special
22
Concern Act (1987) and the North Carolina Plant Protection
and Conservation Act of 1979.
No occurrence records of state protected species in
the study area are found in the NCNHP files. The Waccamaw
killifish is state listed as Proposed Special Concern
(PSC). The word Proposed is defined as a species proposed
for state listing, but that is not yet official. Special
Concern is defined as any species of wild animal native or
once-native to North Carolina which is determined by the
N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission to require monitoring.
D. Traffic Noise and Air Quality
The project is located within the Northern Coastal Plain Air Quality
Control Region. The ambient air quality for Tyrrell County has been
determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. This project is located in an area where the State
Implementation Plan does not contain any transportation control measures.
Hence, the conformity procedures of the joint EPA/USDOT "Interim
Conformity Guidance" dated June 7, 1991 and the FHWA supplemental guidance
memoranda dated July 27, 1992 and October 9, 1992 do not apply to this
project.
The project proposes the construction of a new rest area south of
US 64 on the east bank of the Scuppernong River. No additional through
lanes are planned for US 64, and traffic volumes will not increase due to
the proposed construction. Hence, the project's impact on noise and air
quality will be minor.
Noise levels could increase during construction, but the increase
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, Part
772 (highway traffic noise) and of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and
the National Environmental Protection Act, and no additional reports are
required.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
The construction of the proposed rest area is anticipated to improve
safety along US 64 in the Columbia vicinity and to promote economic
development in the area. The rest area is consistent with the locality's
economic development plan and is supported by the local officials.
As discussed in this report, the project is anticipated to have an overall
positive effect on the surrounding area.
On the basis of planning and environmental studies, it is not
anticipated this project will have a significant detrimental effect on the
human environment. The proposed project will cause no significant changes
in route classification or land use and is not controversial in nature.
Therefore, it is concluded that a Categorical Exclusion is applicable.
MAD/plr
-. 1 -
F?_ 1 I 34 C7 07 I 36' 000' CO'
I
I L B M w g\
Fat la u
NRov; . •
/
Nawloundland
j GA' +..?
t Columbia+ 0
.r

?se....«ne.. Fmn[
land ?!
. I-?•a•?- i.. M. 7l ,G i+
E
.)T Y R R\ L
`
-
Mack

.dUanny /

0
i =9 >? -
COLUMBIA
)OP. 7W 1210
I
//_ J1S i31F171T- ::V
Lug
i ^ Z4I2 W •x.17
/?• .?? 1...17
vc;
+; a '• ? ,p, .? 1700
BULL BAY ? 1z3 un
i 1.o r 1216
rMA 1Z 171.
120 yam: COLUMBIA
,e
12m POP. ism
sct
.7a
1? _ Z
01
•00 12M
BIC.
h
• ? .'? \•150 ? 1112 \00 y LUO ^ 1700) .? 1=
111 .? uJ2 1.100 \• ??/ ?'.? lwi
1z 213 the rr \so atr:
? 17nt
.100 - a? 17LU', .
Go
111 ?i ? \. • .> T?? $
s c up? N E ONO mm `' •? .?'1$ .
as
r ? rvw .g 3
,, i i7os
ISM 112 .o
u? q ii 1.91 • ?'' `8 11CZ ?\
•? ? •'? 110u0 llt? 1\ ?\\g .
.u
JJtI
I ter! ?' ?? \` 3706 .
uO
21 2.000 N\.
1!22
uJ TP
a Ip ? \? lit
:
HOLLOW SWAMP
GROWIT r ,
PROPOSED REST AREA S.ITE
T ,
LIM
W Y
A
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTIME.W OF
t? TRANSPORTATION
= DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
7 PLANNING AND ENNIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
PROPOSED REST AREA
US 64
COLUMBIA, TYRELL COUNTY
T. i. P. PROJECT K - 3101
SCALE (INSET) : 0 mile 0.5 PIG 1
/

?S
2i u .

r
r11 .

1170,

rt;

4
(U Cil ;ry ?- V -'

63

C_l (D n; ?A - ((1 r

O u? -
_
PROPOSED REST AREA SITE
Portion West of
Ludington Drive
Facing Southeast
Portion East of
Ludington Drive
Facing Southeast
East Bank of the
Scuppernong River
and Boardwalk
(Western Boundary
of Rest Area)
LT P PROJECT K-3101
FIGURE 3 '

US 64
FROM THE SCUPPERNONG RIVER TO SR 1208
TYRRELL COUNTY
1994 / 2014 ADT IN HUNDREDS
US 64
36
TO PLYMOUTH 86
3 32 1
8 76 2
1) 1 k.-
1 2
1 2
35 1
85 ? 1
F ROPOSED 86
EST AREA
6 3 33
14 7 79 T
LUDINGTON DRIVE
6 3-)
14 7
3
7-)
36
86
10
27
BROAD STREET
10
27
SCUPPERNONG
_,-,RIVER BRIDGE
36
f86
1
35 1
85 1
36
t 86
WATER STREET
2
3 f -j3
7 79
36
86
? 2
3
1 8
2
TO MANTEO
I
f r
3 4 32 1
3 8 11 76 2
8 ?
4
11
37 37
89 89
US 64
12
ASR 1208
5
12
DRAWING NOT TO SCALE
PROJECT K - 3101
FIGURE 4

£661 ISS 61:£ti:01 [ AON UOIN 'Zgp.117[uea1j303 (Z91)J
4 ?bb
U ?g4 ?N 5? to
?, u?5n8 g $
x I? a4o?s,a?a? $3
O it 9? J,a
Ul -W
? ? O T 'r N?p?Rr?go ?tdyt ?j ¢?W ?QO v?K??h
?i
It!
O a4a????'? ?' O d
K W ? a'4o?????vwi ? N
1- r
O
CL c
v~iL)- I2 1 +jOO
2 2 L. ''-
?? # r 0 0.?

W gN
0 ?•?Fo "'

s Y ?
u ?
tC
l 'n • < Y ?9
7 G
.
1
_
T ? <
J '
4 ? _ - 'yor°
ilnj
?' 11 •• Z•.y •ii
?,
11? g $ g
? s a
>n
a N
•" ?$? pOA?E O1
z
e3 >3s sr o
r
o /
y ? o D VI
•? M
Y
8 V
? ? V
? tr
? ? <I R C

vca'If

/ ?? a•
/ I

t. Y
N 0,46•x10 ? II
II
1
I -I
a ?I
?I + oil
Il -.
If u.73 is 3 \
YI ?s
Id
L?
z
M
'? '? t N+ ? ? S d
S Yn ? t? ?f ! aoI• S Y+§ C

o W
r. a
r?
D
z
I ?h
V
a ae ?< H
a F w
a •z
o?
1?
?
`z0
?
94 U
6F
Z U I-a
?-+ W a
z ?-? W
°
ao
da
way
cL F
a
a

F
Q ? L
? ? N Z
0 4J O ? ? O I
r V U =O W
++ 0
3E
H
7r
?t
.Inn
old 1
I-P
2
IW.
Q ?
Z O
W W
i
N
1

D .•Y _... O '??. 1 "'- ---'rOTtY'?- M`AMti r AC A LIN6•
\ 7?
? 4 -
1 '
-
7 N ?y IyrpRa r.°a dA,230 Kr C
"
a -y3- •,• .,.. ?.. - -
• a
($ P # ;?f ,vnrtYX?ER Q /2 b?'---i ?I' 1.y __ -.n
r I
:a
44
? 2'C C ? G. 'a
ON \\ x ;L J+ 2 y i• w
O fir' `? c t`l ?i=a Ml 0' J a 46
f l
tins
? N 1 > a
SIZ43' 5 AO W N N / ,
o \? 0
\
O
ell
In
O
1 Wo a'.
p ' ?i ?$• u 'r ` o ? , y W Z ? '`n ° r H '•' I.i O
' 1 g 7? b •P? u ° O Y u
?I i II In ? 8 0?? YIYy a J? o
u x a, u 1?
I ^ N ? ° ? Y\ ? ? ?h h 41 4 gtWil 0
.32.5 ? U \ o ?'.? QZ ?? p
W b
• ( V JS'
8II1 28' rr in M 1?
II ? ° a °?9r? O
I i o
I I' Al fib X515 a<tkn i pp •?
o RE?1aE i?? ° \ a N b b
ti 6 /7Ylp / \ Y? ////?I) s
-tv 4,
H. A" ) 3I .I in
??ALJ I I 1? z ? ?"'+/3ddn,>s °IVI -•--_
- -. ooo..t•7 J 0 as a
8g co ?
S E ti 1'
o ?
11 z ? ??
m
k
O ¢
41
O N
N
a o
to St. °J • alt
O ` n
' o 0
• i N
O
' • r-1 H
ro
U
av
o
• C
w t¢?
N • ? • h .
p hl L f M O
w
N
L
w
o, a
L ?
W
? l0
H re ?.
C L
O
w C

o o
0 t
3
zou N U o tT
D.-r -1 .I
Jh'?Q C N C
I W
Q1,b,U O ? X
j
t? o
c
j
oz aH o
x y
tj
Z
N
Q 4
) •
1 H
z`oc ac r
1.
0 n
?-
E
cc :3

o p • • ?o d• v 4Q
v
O tl ?^ O • °a !gyp O i.
Virginia Avc• • • v o °
?; '=-- - Second St. /
s m
•
Y.
0 0 ?, • o ?, ?;, • :I
a O °° • "?' °v c i
J pcansylvxnia Ell - b 1? • o O
I; a • o
t4 UN w
x • '^ o • 0 • • k Church St. r.
o
=14 d• •
4 •• p
o O O
d- 1
C, 0
A 13 v O Q Q 1
E+ o • w S. pio3d St.
U • d St.
P4 . Tl• Droa
ca C4 A
A r • n O
• ; .LEL
A
• a
h /o _....:1_
C H p P , 9'
• ,1 a w • R " • Iilm St. , w W W x• $iin Sl. • u r-
F ?? ~ • w
• a:? tr • ~ w (?
O w ~ ® r# w
• • • -??159 ~ ° of
J ,? N N N
•^ M ?_. N. 5'Varer St.
,T
..? ? nn cn ? CA
'' 111 N =.ij?•' S "? ,:: ! `7 Ca '•,
c f?1 ?K ?r j•,'? to -
yy
ding '? n 0
1? to o?? . ,
1'?l' w .''' r dl 1• a U• q j
•r:i/1?`,I•;1'ttit•ti •.? .'j •, ilk{ ' _? U rr
. t, Jt'I a Sri..
CL
44 N
c
r ,' ,?s?1• , r
t°n

:a

Photographs of the Dr. Alexandei
TIP Project K-3101
Figure 7

of
• x I I
I I
'
I
I
I?

tn
I
i
II
'
• I
Ii x
a
x Q

0
U

x?
o I
j
. II, p ? x a 4
I ?? 6
? r
' Cif ? \, P4
tt m
MIR I1 x 13
I U3AIU JNONI13ddnos
??? I1J
G ?
y a
• it ? b
h Eta
z r? K
I
R
a
l N x?
1`- - -----------------------
-UG uoionlofil r
CO
w
a
ca
LL
ti;
. M SwF p
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resource 2
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division o
Betty Ray McCain, secretary William
December 10, 1993
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Rest Area on US 64, Columbia, Tyrrell County,
K-3101, 9.8010720, ER 94-7658
Dear Mr. Graf:-
Q` C F ??.
J
DEC 15 1993
DtVlSjoyq OF•
Thank you for your letter of October 7, 1993, transmitting the archaeological
survey report by Deborah Joy concerning the above project. This letter replaces
our previous clearance letter of November 17, 1993, which inadvertently
suggested that additional concerns or corrections needed to be addressed in a final
report.
We agree that no properties were located which might be considered eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.
The report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely, --
avid Brook
U Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:sIW
V""
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
109 East Jones Stmt • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

North Carolina Department of Cultural
James B. Hunt. Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
November 5, 1993 _
Nicholas L. Graf -
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Rest Area on US 64, Columbia, Tyrrell County,
K-3101, 9.8010720, ER 94-7609
Dear Mr. Graf:
X49
)urce tit DIVISION OF e`
? HIGHWAYS P?
Division of
William S. Pnc ctor
Thank you for your letter of September 29, 1993, concerning the above project
We have reviewed the phase I historic architectural resources survey report
prepared by Clay Griffith for the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT). We understand that NCDOT proposes to relocate the Abner Alexander
House to a site along the Scuppernong River for use as a NCDOT Rest Area and
Columbia/Tyrrell County Visitor Center.
As indicated in the report, we believe the Alexander House may be a contributing
structure in the Columbia Historic District, a property potentially eligible for listing
in the National Register of Historic Places. However, we have questions
concerning the structural integrity of the house, as well as its preservation
potential. We understand that the church which owns the house will demolish it
in the near future to build a parking lot. Given these overriding concerns, we
believe the project will have no adverse effect upon the historic district if the
Alexander House is documented prior to its removal from the district.
Once the Alexander House has been relocated to its new site, it will lose its
integrity of location.and setting and be severed from the historic district. Thus,
we concur with Federal Highway, Administration's determination that the
Alexander'House would 'not be individually eligible for the National Register once it
has been moved.
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.
1493
109 Fast Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
A-2
Nicholas L. Graf
November 5, 1993, 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.
Sirreer,ely,
l
David' Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
J. D. Brickhouse, Tyrrell County
A-3
C 7 '
-?
? SWI
rr J
r ? 1
MAR
1 8 19 94

North Caro'una Department of C-ultura, Zesourc H •O c'-
James B. Hunt. Jr.. Governor Division o ory
Betty Ray McCain. Secretary William S. Price, r.. Director
March 16, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration -
Department of Transportation.
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Rest area on US 64, Columbia, Tyrrell County, K-
___ 31.01, 9..8010720, ER 94-7609 ___-_
Dear Mr_ Graf: - - - - -
In response to a request from the Federal Highway Administration, we would like
-to clarify our. November 5,1993, letter concerning the above project. Specifically-, - -
we believe that construction of the rest area/visitor's center itself will not affect
=_?- - th-e--"iortai-Register-listed-Columbia Historic District. ---- -- - - - - - -
=--? = The abov-e-comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the-National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory. Council on Historic Preservation.'.s___.._._
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
S4ncepqly,
G
David Brook
Deputy-State. Historic Preservation.-_Offzer---
DB:slw
- - -- - - -- cc:. H. F. Vick
B. Church
-- --J. D. Brickhouse, Tyrrell County - - - -
109 Fast Jones Sftd • Raks. Nrih Ana 27601-2807
A-4
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTER
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ?G E 1 Y\
Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
Rou te 1, Box 195-B
7'D Creswell, North Carolina 27928

C? JAN 2 1 1994
?z
January 20, 1994 2 SICU OF
j
$
F GHWAYS Q
1/1RONtWr
' H. Franklin Vick, Manager
N.C. Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Subject: US 64 Proposed Rest Area in Columbia, N.C.
TIP Project K-3101
The refuge has reviewed the rest area and parking lot plans for the
subject project and offers the following comments:
i I. The base ditch is acceptable if a boardwalk(s) can be
built on pilings over the ditch. We also would like to
plant shrubbery along the 6:1 slope.
2. The parking lot designed for U.S. Fish and Wildlife land
is too large. It should be redesigned and compressed on
an east-west axis (see Figure 1). The island with a
storage building may have to be eliminated. The
southeast and south portions of the lot extend too far
south. The south end of the lot extends 26 feet into a
designated wetland and will not be permitted in a* timely
fashion. We suggest moving part of Ludington Drive and
the parking lot 15 - 18 feet to the east. Our main
concern is trying to fit a 10-12,000 square foot visitor
center onto the same 4 acre tract with the parking lot.
3. The U':S. Fish and Wildlife survey contractor (Stroud
Associates) recently surveyed the boundaries of the 4
acre Fish and Wildlife tract and the original right-of-
way for Ludington Drive. Several discrepancies were
found with the North Carolina Department of
Transportation survey markers and monuments.
A-5
Vick Letter
1/20/94
Page 2
Monuments for the boundary line between U.S. Fish and
Wildlife and Harris Tract (east west) are 1 - 2 feet off .
The original right-of-way (ROW) for Ludington Drive does
not match where the roadway was actually constructed.
This ROW needs to be rewritten to match the roadway now
in place. Please contact Bill Rasberry, Land Surveyor,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA, (404) 679-
7226 to work out adjustments in boundary markers.
I am confident we. can work out the above concerns in a timely.
manner.. If you need more information or want to arrange a meeting,
give me a call at 919/797-4431.
Since Y,
Jim Savery
Refuge Manager
Enclosure: Figure 1 (map)
Copies to:
Bill Grabill, USFWS, Atlanta
Jerry Vits, Realty, Atlanta
Billy Rasberry, Realty, Atlanta
L. K. "Mike" Gantt, USFWS, Raleigh
Carlisle Harrell, Columbia, Manager
J. D. Brickhouse, Tyrrell, Manager
r "
A-6

W
OL
91
v
G J
1 v1 ,yY•i
3 Cd
b0 NOLOMIGf 11

r
•

¦ L? x
•
¦
?? a r

C?p
w I ??

R

CL
MZ
I
V
W
i

0 r

`

Oa
lJ
O'V
Y
z
i
9 C 9 ??
73 d • .
Y 3 ? ? ? Y
?. W5
v • r
1 13 . .? FBI i A• I t 0 W. C ,
• a
rI J \\ \\\
I
1 I
Tr H3AIM DNONtl3ddn3S
I
I
A-7
41
a.1 mod.
103-'_1 -94 13:46 $919 797 7106 Pf)(:0SIN LAKES
S
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
podosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
Route 1, Box 195-B
Creswell, North Carolina 27928
March 21, 1994
H. Franklin Vick, Manager
N.C. Da_partme*+t of -i-ranSportation
Plann=g and Environmental' Branch
Division of Righways
P.C. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Subject: JS 64 Proposed Rest Area in Collar-bia, X.C.
TIP Project K-3101
letter is in reference to tTT uTa=uarrY 20, 1994 corutents on the
ah.,, t. t 5 your t =4e F' shcve prod. ?? ?s d? ....,? s ons with Y o.,fi s ?-z and U . S . 1.. and
vs:.i dlife. engineers, 'Che refuge appro'Tec. the car: = n ,Lot design- ?:?
proposed.
1 would like to point out that the U . S . Fier and Wildlife sure ev
markers anal monuments for the property line along our north
boundary line are the official markers. I v_ ou have a question
concerning these markers, please contact B .11y Rasberry, Lend
Surveyor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta,' CA, 404/6-19-
7226.
Ir you need any more in_-ormation concerning our participation in
the Droject, please call me at 919/797-4431.
Sincerely,
' j im Savery
_ Reft_ge Manager
A-8
Z of., 2

(13-21.9-4 11:47 $919 7,1; 7106 piic:tiSIN LAKES Z 003
Copies to:
Bill Grabill, USFWS, at? anta
Jerry Vits, Realty, P_tlanta
Billy Rasber=y, Realty, Atlanta
L. K. "Mike" Gantt, uSFWS, Raleigh
Carlisle Farrell, Columbia, manager
. D- Brick:aouse, Tyrrell, Manager

A-9
Advisory
r Council On
Historic
Preservation
The Old Post Office Building
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, #809
Washington, DC 20004
MAR 3 A 1894
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
REF: Proposed Construction of Visitor Information Center
and Highway Rest Area on US 64
Columbia, Tyrrell County, North Carolina
..Project NHS-64(13)
Dear Mr. Graf:
On March 24, 1994, the Council received your determination,
supported by the North Carolina State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO), that the referenced undertaking will have no
adverse effect upon the Columbia Historic District, which is
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places. Pursuant to Section 800.5(d)(2) of the Council's
regulations, "Protection of Historic Properties" (36 CFR Part
800), we do not object to your determination. Therefore, you are
not required to take any further steps to comply with Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act other than to implement
the undertaking as proposed and consistent with the conditions
you have reached with the North Carolina SHPO.
Thank you for your cooperation.
ly,
ti '^
Klima
Vcor
E ern Office of Review

A-10
APPENDIX B
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION
IMPACTS TO POCOSIN LAKES WILDLIFE REFUGE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITH MINOR INVOLVEMENT
WITH PUBLIC PARKS, RECREATION LANDS, AND WILDLIFE AND
WATERFOWL REFUGES
F. A. Project NHS-64(13)
State Project 9.8010720
T. I. P. No. K-3101
Description: US 64, Proposed Rest Area and Visitor Center
Columbia Tyrrell County (For details regarding
the proiect's proposed use of a portion of the
Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, see
Section V.A.1.e. of the Categorical Exclusion.
Yes No
1. Is the proposed project designed to
improve the operational characteristics,
safety, and/or physical condition of
existing highway facilities on X
essentially the same location?
X
2. Is the project on new location?
3. Is-the Section 4(f) land a publicly
owned public park, recreation land, or
wildlife and waterfowl refuge located X
adjacent to the existing highway?
4. Does the amount and location of the land
to be used impair the use of the
remaining Section 4(f) land, in whole or
in part, for its intended purpose? ? X
(See chart below)
Total size of section 4(f) site Maximum to be acquired
less than 10 acres ................10 percent of site
10 acres-100 acres ................ 1 acre
greater than 100 acres ............ 1 percent of site
5. Do the proximity impacts of the project
(e.g., noise, air and water pollution,
wildlife and habitat effects, aesthetic
values) on the remaining Section 4(f)
land impair the use of such land for its F-1 X
intended purpose?
B-1

Yes No
6. Do the officials having jurisdiction
over the Section 4(f) land agree, in
writing, with the assessment of the
impacts of the proposed project on, and
the proposed mitigation for, the Section X
4(f) lands?
7. Does the project use land from a site
purchased or improved with funds under
the Land and Water Conservation Act
{Section 6(f)), the Federal Aid in Fish
Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson Act),
the Federal Aid in Wildlife Act
_ (Pittman-Robertson Act), or similar
laws, or are the lands otherwise
encumbered with a Federal interest ?
(e,g., former Federal surplus property)?
a. If the project involves lands described
in Item 7 above, does the appropriate ?
Federal Agency object to the land
conversion or transfer?
9. Does the project require preparation of ?
an EIS?
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE
FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT

X
X
X
The following alternatives were evaluated and
found not to be feasible and prudent:
Yes No
X F-1
1. Do-nothing.
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
X
(a) correct capacity deficiencies?
T-1 X
(b) correct existing safety hazards?
X.
or (c) correct deteriorated conditions?
and (d) create costs, unusual problems, or X a
impacts of extraordinary measure?
B-2
Yes No
2. Improvement of the highway without using
the adiacent public park, recreational X
land, or wildlife waterfowl refuge.
(a) Have minor alignment shifts,
changes in standards, use of
retaining walls, etc., or traffic
X ?
management measures been evaluated?
(b) The items in 2(a) would result in
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) substantial adverse community
impact
or (ii) substantial increased costs

or unique engineering,
transportation, maintenance,
or safety problems
or (iv) substantial social,
environmental, or economic
impacts

or (v) a project which does not meet
the need
and (vi) impacts, costs, or problems
which are of extraordinary
magnitude
B-3
Yes No
3. Build an improved facility on new
location without using the public ark
recreational land, or wildlife and X ?
waterfowl refuge. This would be a
localized "run around.")
(a) An alternate on new location would
result in: (circle, as appropriate)
(i) a project which does not solve
the existing problems
or (ii) substantial social,
environmental, or economic
impacts **
or (iii) a substantial increase in
project cost or engineering
difficulties
and (iv) such impacts, costs, or
difficulties of truly unusual
or unique or extraordinary
magnitude
*Building the rest area elsewhere would fail to accomplish
one of the objectives of the project, which is to develop a
rest area and visitor center to operate in conjunction with
the proposed Walter B. Jones Center for the Sounds. Local
officials want the adjacent facilities for economic growth,
and the rest area is consistent with the locality's land
use plans and the Scuppernong River waterfront
revitilization plans. .
**Building the rest area elsewhere might result in the
relocation of residences or businesses or other adverse
environmental impacts such as damage to wetlands. The
recommended location impacts no businesses, residences, or
wetlands.
Note: Any response in a box requires additional
information prior to approval. Consult Nationwide
4(f) evaluation.
B-4

MINIMIZATION OF HARM
1.
2.
3.
The project includes all possible
planning to minimize harm.
Measures to minimize harm include the
following: (circle those which are
appropriate)
a. Replacement-of lands used with lands
of reasonably equivalent usefulness
and location and of at least
comparable value.
b. Replacement of facilities impacted
by the project including sidewalks,
paths, benches, lights, trees, and
other facilities.
O Restoration and landscaping of
disturbed areas.
O Incorporation of design features and
habitat features, where necessary,
to reduce or minimize impacts to the
Section 4(f) property.
e. Payment of t
the land and
improvements
Section 4(f)
market value
improvements
he fair market value of
improvements taken or
to the remaining
site equal to the fair
of the land and.
taken.
f. Additional or alternative mitigation
measures as determined necessary
based on consultation with the
officials having jurisdiction over
the parkland, recreation area, or
wildlife on waterfowl refuge.
Yes No
X F-1
A discussion of specific mitigation measures is provided
as follows:
* Restoration and landscaping of disturbed areas -
N000T will plant vegetation, including Leyland
Cypress, Willow Oak, Daylilies, Dogwood and Pampas
Grass, on the rest area and visitor center site.
* The project will provide a system of sidewalks that
tie in with the existing boardwalk which runs along
the Scuppernong River bank and a part of which
is adjacent to the Pocosin. Lakes Wildlife Refuge.
B-5

* Part of the rest area/visitor center building will
be available for use by the Center for the Sounds as
temporary office space.
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following
(attach correspondence):
a. Officials having jurisdiction over
the Section 4(f) Land (see pages B-7,8)
b. Local/State/Federal Agencies (see Appendix A)
C. US Coast Guard (for bridge requiring bridge
permits) (N/A)
d. DOI, if Section 6(f) lands are involved (N/A)
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The'project meets all criteria included in the programmatic
4(f) evaluation approved on December 23, 1986.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the
findings made are clearly applicable to this project. There
are no feasible or prudent alternatives which avoid use of
the Section 4(f) land.
The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm,
and there are assurances that the measures to minimize harm
will be incorporated in the project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed.
Approved:
/-6- <74-
D at e
Illel,
Dat e

+, manager, rianning & tnvironmentai Brancn
NCDOT
f-?
or, F-HWA
B-6
f 4
f.. 7 1
TAKES
United States Department of the Interior Am° 1c"A-
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE o®
Ecological Services
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
January 4, 1994
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Attention: Missy Dickens
Dear Mr. Vick:
Reference is made to your December 1, 1993, request for potential
environmental impacts associated with the proposed construction of
a new rest area and visitor center along US 64 in Columbia, Tyrrell
County, North Carolina (TIP Project K-3101). The Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) makes the following comments in accordance with
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended;
16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report is intended
to assist the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
in meeting its Section 4(f) review requirements.
The proposed visitor center would require use of Service lands on
Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. Refuge lands would be used
to construct a parking area, and a portion of an existing street
(already on Service property) would be relocated. These activities
may--occupy approximately 6,500 square feet of Refuge property. The
parking area also would serve the visitor's center that the Service
plans for this tract.
According to the environmental documentation provided by NCDOT,'the
project area currently provides little fish and wildlife habitat,
there are no wetlands present, and no adverse effects to Federally-
listed,. threatened or endangered species are expected. The Service
concurs with these determinations... The project area.comprises a
grassy, gravelly area surrounded by vacant 'lots. The quality-of-
the project area for fish and wildlife habitat is not likely to
improve significantly without the project, as it is located well
within the Town of Columbia. Moreover, the Service plans to
develop the project area for its visitor center: The -project has
B-7

the potential to increase stormwater runoff into the Scuppernong
River along the western boundary of the Refuge tract,' but this can
be alleviated by proper stormwater management and maintenance of
existing vegetated wetland buffers.,.
As there will be no direct or indirect loss of wetlands"or other
important habitats for fish and wildlife resources, there is no
need for compensatory habitat mitigation. The proposed use of
Refuge lands will faci-litate the Service's own plans for this area.
The Service's Raleigh Ecological Services office does not object to
the proposed use of National Wildlife Refuge lands for this project
provided that NCDOT satisfies the concerns of the Refuge Manager
and the Realty Division of our Atlanta Regional Office.
As noted above, the Service concurs with your finding that no
Federally-listed endangered 'or threatened species, nor critical
habitats- would be adversely affected by the proposed project.
Therefore, the requirements of Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act are fulfilled. However, obligations under Section 7 of that
Act must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts
of this identified action that may affect listed species or
critical habitat in a manner not previously considered;. (2) this
action is subsequently modified in a manner which was not
considered in' this review; or, (3) a new species is listed.or
critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified
action.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project.
If you have any -questions, please contact David Dell, Permits.
Coordinator for this office (919/856-4520).
Sincerely,
ell Z.
L.K. Mike Gantt
Supervisor
B-8
.i
APPENDIX C
FINAL SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION
IMPACTS TO COLUMBIA HISTORIC DISTRICT
r,-
US 64
Proposed Rest Area and Visitor Center
Columbia
Tyrrell County
Federal Aid Project No. NHS-64 13)
State Project No. 9.8010720
T.I.P. Project K-3101
FINAL SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION
FOR IMPACTS TO THE COLUMBIA HISTORIC DISTRICT
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HI6HWAYS
APPROVED:
5-23-74. 1 ?/- Zf-?- -
Date H. Fran in Virck, P. E., Manager
*01 Planning and Environmental Branch
Date N. Larson
R tonal Administrator, F

FINAL SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION
(IMPACTS TO COLUMBIA HISTORIC DISTRICT)
I. Description of Proposed Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to construct
a new rest area on the south side of US 64 on the east bank of the
Scuppernong River in Columbia, Tyrrell County. Plans for the rest area
include realigning Ludington Drive (SR 1238), relocating the (Dr. Alexan-
der) Parish House to the proposed site and renovating it to serve as a
visitor center, building a rest room building adjacent to the relocated
house, building parking facilities (some of which are to be shared with
the proposed Walter B. Jones Center for the Sounds), building sidewalks,
and landscaping. The purpose of the project is to improve safety along
US 64, to promote economic development in the area, and to utilize the
Parish House at the request of the local officials. Figure 8 shows the
proposed rest area layout.
II. Description of Resource
The structure designated for relocation and restoration as the rest
area and visitor center in Columbia, the (Dr. Alexander) Parish House, is
currently located on Road Street in Columbia and is a contributing member
in the National Register nomination for the Columbia Historic District
currently being prepared. The recommended alternative proposes to move
the Parish House from the Columbia Historic District (see Figure 6), which
has been determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places. Therefore, Section 4(f) applies to the anticipated impact upon the
historic district.
The Parish House is currently associated with St. Andrew's Episcopal
Church in Columbia. St. Andrew's Parish dates from 1729, but this local
congregation was formed in the 1870s. The first church building for the
St. Andrew's congregation was built in 1879, but the present church was
constructed in the first decade of the twentieth century.
Although the structure to be relocated for the proposed rest area is
referred to as the "Parish House," it has, in fact, never served the
church in that capacity. The structure was acquired by St. Andrew's in
1963 and had been owned previously by the Free Will Baptist congregation
and several private owners.
The so-called "Parish House" was originally the residence of
Dr. Abner Alexander (1845-1904), a prominent local physician who served in
the Civil War. The house probably dates from the late 1880s or 1890s and
features a number of popular late-Victorian details (see Figure 7).
Dr. Alexander served three terms as a member of the General Assembly from
1895 to 1898 and 1903 to 1904, and he owned the house at the time of his
death.
The Parish (Dr. Alexander) House has a central hall plan with two
steeply-pitched front gables and an attached porch with turned posts and a
concave mansard roof. Scar marks indicate a decorative spindle frieze and
C-2
scroll brackets no longer extant under the porch soffit. The most
elaborate decoration occurs on the window and door surrounds which feature
projecting cornices and brackets. The windows are two-over-two sash.
Above the interior and exterior doorways are transom panels with
lozenge-shaped, ruby window glass. The central entrance has paired transom
panels over two-leaf, four-panel doors. The two northern rooms are served
by corner fireplaces with an internal chimney and simply decorated
mantels. A later one-story, gable-roofed addition extends from the rear
of the house. The engaged porch on the rear addition repeats the
detailing of the front of the porch but without the scroll brackets. The
National Register Nomination points out that the decorative woodwork for
houses in Columbia probably came from the local mills which served the
prosperous lumber industry.
Terry Everett, the Senior Warden of St. Andrew's Episcopal Church,
states that the church is donating the Parish (Dr. Alexander) House for
use as the rest area and visitor center because the local congregation
simply cannot afford to maintain the property. The property is threatened
by deterioration and vandalism, and the vestry of St. Andrew's plans to
demolish the structure if it is not removed. NCDOT proposes to relocate,
preserve, and restore the structure.
III. Alternatives
The following alternatives to avoid or minimize impact on the Parish
House were considered:
A. "Do Nothing" Alternative
The "do nothing" alternative is not considered prudent because
it would not provide the safety or economic benefits of the rest
area. Also, it would fail to fulfill part of the purpose of the
project, which is to utilize the Parish House at the request of the
officials of the Town of Columbia and Tyrrell County. The St.
Andrew's Episcopal Church has stated that it will demolish the Parish
House if it is not moved from its property. Therefore, the "do
nothing" alternative would result in the destruction of the Parish
House, rather than its preservation.
B. Design Alternatives
Other designs for the rest area which would avoid moving the
Parish House would fail to accommodate the locality's request to use
the Parish House. To build the rest area without using the Parish
House would also result in the destruction, rather than the
preservation, of the Parish House since the church plans to demolish
the house if is not moved. Therefore, other design alternatives that
do not move and use the Parish House are not considered prudent.
C. Recommended Alternative
Although removing a contributing property from a historic
district is not typically desirable from the historic preservation
perspective, using the Parish House in this case will have positive
overall effects on the historic climate of downtown Columbia.

C-3
First, the recommended alternative will preserve the Parish
House; all other alternatives will result in the house's destruction.
Secondly, the recommended alternative will restore the subject
structure. The Parish House, which is currently abandoned and in
disrepair, has become the object of vandalism. As such, it offers
questionable aesthetic value to the district. Under the subject
project, the house will be renovated in a manner consistent with its
character. Although it will no longer be located within the
boundaries of the historic district, the restored structure will
enhance the historic climate of downtown Columbia. In fact, the
restored house located outside the historic district will have more
aesthetic value than the dilapidated house inside the district
currently does.
The recommended alternative will enhance the historic climate of
downtown Columbia by removing an object of vandalism from a historic
district, preserving a historic structure that would otherwise be
razed, and renovating the structure to supplement its aesthetic
value.
IV. Measures to Minimize Harm
In order to minimize impact to the historic district, after the house
is moved, the following steps will be taken by the contractor to restore
the house's former lot:
- debris will be moved from the lot
the lot will be graded to match surrounding natural contours
the lot will be seeded.
The following actions will be carried out to enhance the historic
climate and integrity of downtown Columbia:
The Parish House has been recorded and photographed by the NCDOT
Architectural History staff, who will supply the records to the
State Historic Preservation Office.
The Parish House will be renovated in a manner consistent with
its character.
V. Coordination
Appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies were contacted during
the project planning studies. No opposition to the project regarding its
impact on the Columbia Historic District or on other architecturally
historic resources has been raised. The SHPO concurs that the Columbia
Historic District is eligible for the National Register and that the
subject project constitutes a No Adverse Effect upon the District. The
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation does not object to that
determination (see letter on page A-10).
i t' ..
C-4
Approval subject to the requirements of Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act will be necessary. This approval from the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation will be obtained prior to the
beginning of project construction.
VI. Evaluation of Feasible and Prudent Alternatives
The "do nothing" and avoidance alternatives fail to fulfill part of
the project's purpose, which is to use the Parish House as the locality
has requested. In addition, the "do nothing" alternative will not provide
the safety benefits of the proposed rest area. Both of these alternatives
would result in the destruction of the Parish House by its owner.
Therefore, neither the "do nothing" alternative nor the avoidance
alternative is considered a feasible and prudent alternative.
Consequently, it is concluded that there are no feasible and prudent
alternatives that will fulfill the purpose of the project without using
the subject Section 4(f) property.
VII. Preferred Alternative and Mitigation Plan
The recommended alternative is a feasible and prudent alternative
with minimal impact on the Columbia Historic District. It is the only
alternative that will prevent destruction of the Parish House, and this
alternative alone fully satisfies the objective of the project.
In order to mitigate for the removal of the Parish House from the
Columbia Historic District, the house's former lot will be cleaned up and
landscaped once the house is moved. Furthermore, the house has been
recorded through photographs, and it will be restored.
VIII. Department of Interior Coordination
A copy of the Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, along with the Draft
Categorical Exclusion, was provided to the U. S. Department of Interior
(USDOI); the USDOI was asked to comment on the Draft Section 4(f)
Evaluation.
IX. Comments Received on the Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation
The USDOI responded with no comments on the Draft Section 4(f)
Evaluation for impacts to the Columbia Historic District (see letter, page
C-5).
X. Conclusion
Based upon the above considerations, there is no feasible and prudent
alternative to the use of the Parish House, a contributing member of the
Columbia Historic District. The proposed project includes all possible
planning to minimize harm to the Columbia Historic District caused by the
use of the Parish House.
MAD/plr
jtAT Or
-b IQ A N
United States Department of the Inter' i
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
3 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
ER-9/0085 APR 1
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442
Dear Mr. Graf:
SC
O
APRO4ft
DIVISION OF
?H1GHwAYS
`"7An. u , ,V P
This responds to the request for the Department of the Interior's comments on the
draft Section 4(f) evaluation for US-64 Rest Area and Visitor Center, Columbia, 3
Tyrrell County, North Carolina. ,f ..
We concur that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to avoid the
Section 4(f) involvements with the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge and
with the Columbia Historic District. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
which manages the refuge advises' that it has no objection to the use of the
programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation in addressing Section 4(f) impacts on the
refuge and is satisfied with the project as it now stands.
We also concur that all means to minimize harm to both the Pocosin Lakes National
Wildlife Refuge and the Columbia Historic District have been addressed. We urge
continued close coordination with the FWS in the development of the rest area and
visitor center.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments.
Sincerelb,
7,all,
P. Deason
actor
ice of Environmental Policy
and Compliance
C 'N.
Mr. H. Franklin Vick V
1W Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
C-5