19950246 Ver 1_Complete File_19950308

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
REF. NO. OR ROO BLDG.
m
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILL ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TOME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS. ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY. FOR MY SIGNATURE ?. SIGNATURE
? ?. TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

SrArt
:.q
?.w
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
May 8, 1996
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6512 Falls of the Neuse Road
Suite 105
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. Michael Smith
Chief, Northern Section
Dear Sir:
1-996
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY

SUBJECT: Request for Modification of General Permit No. 198200031 (Action ID's:
199401885, 199401886 and 199401887) for the Proposed Replacement
of Roanoke River Overflow Bridge Nos. 74, 65 and 72 in Northhampton
County; TIP Nos. B-1299, B-1300 and B-1307; State Project Nos.
8.1100901, 8.1101001 and 8.1100801; Federal Aid Nos. BRST-258(2),
BRSTP-258(3) and BRSTP-258(1), respectively
One of the conditions in the subject permit expressly prohibits in-stream
construction activities at the three bridge sites from February through June of any year
to protect anadromous fish resources.
Observations at Bridge No. 74 and Bridge No. 72 during April and May of this
year indicate that the overflow channels were either dry, or held small quantities of water
at pool elevations. Elevations were taken at the lowest channel points at each bridge
site on May 6, 1996 and were found to be: 36.2 feee and 35.8 feet*, respectively. To
ascertain whether channel flows from the Roanoke River had provided recent
hydrological inputs to either of the overflow streams, an elevation of the most recent
high water mark at the Scotland Neck Bridge (over the Roanoke River) was recorded as
30.6 feet= on May 6, 1996. The Water Control Management Office of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers confirms that an approximate high water elevation of 36.0-37.0 feet*
would be expected at the Scotland Neck Bridge following a release of 35,000 cubic feet
per second (cfs) from the Roanoke Rapids Dam. This kind of release is considered to
be a very rare event. Single releases of 20,000 cfs are more normal occurrences
(approximately annually), but even this additional input to the river channel would only
result in a high water elevation of approximately 32.5 feef at the Scotland Neck Bridge,
3-4 feet lower than the lowest channel elevations at the two bridge sites.

. I
Page 2
May 8, 1996
Mr. Smith
It is reasonable to assume that anadromous fish runs into the floodplains
adjacent to Bridge Nos. 74 and 72 only occur during so-called flood years, when high
water levels in the river channel exceed elevations of 35.0-36.0 feet:, respectively.
Recent field data and information from the Corps of Engineers seem to confirm that
hydrological inputs to these areas from the river may only occur intermittently in
conjunction with significant flood events.
Based upon this information the Department requests that General Permit
Special Condition "a" be modified as follows:
a. Construction and restoration activities will not occur within waters of the United States,
including wetlands, during any February through June interval, in which high water elevations of at
least 35.8 feet are experienced at the Scotland Neck Bridge over the Roanoke River on US 258.
The proposed detour fill and pipe culvert at Bridge No. 65 may remain in place over the restrictive
period; however, no active construction or restoration will take place over this period. The detour
fills at Bridge Nos. 74 and 72 may not remain in place during the moratorium
Modifying this restriction will allow the Department's contractor to initiate work
immediately on projects B-1299 and B-1307, which would make it possible for these
bridges to be completed within a more realistic time frame. Your assistance in
providing a timely response to this request will be appreciated. Should you have any
questions or comments, please call Mr. M. Randall Turner at [phone].
values cited are "above mean sea level"
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
Enclosure
HFVlmrt
cc: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, COE, Regulatory Branch
Mr. Allen Piner, COE, Water Control Management
Mr. John Domey, DEM, Water Quality Section
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC, NCDOT Coordinator
Ms. Howard Hag, FWS, Raleigh
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS, Beaufort
Ms. Sara Winslow, DMF, Elizabeth City
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., NCDOT, Program Development
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., NCDOT, Roadway Design
Mr. A. L. Hanicins, P.E., NCDOT, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John Smith, P.E., NCDOT, Structure Design
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., NCDOT, Design Branch
Mr. D. R. Conner, P.E., NCDOT, Division 1
Mr. J. R. Pope, P.E., NCDOT, Division 1
Mr. M. Randall Turner, NCDOT, Division 1

U I ?/ J
o ro r)j 04
'moo ??` i\ ro w l N ?? ([f
4-1
1 1 \? ; 104 N 4J o(.0
V r „a / n 1 IV H w N ID ? rn
U W o r I O'o `j 6`i
I-q
0
14
Z E
m • \11 ii' ' (D 0
.\ m
III a V a(?daLn
=iT
if,
? I
l lj
4 If
if ji
1011 it 1, cam' d 1 ' } t? , 4{III I I\
if I
i?
if
by / ?? `" o Rte/
.... .........
OJv
r 11
i
' O /? )?
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
AILWT4 0. WA
?Mza
M IL
ID F= F=1
March-13;-1995
Northampton County
DEM Project # 95246
TIP# B-1300
COE # 199401885
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. Franklin Vick
NC DOT
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-5201
F9! E DOPY
Dear Mr. Vick:
You have our approval to place fill material in 0.03 acres of permanent fill and 0.52 acres of
temporary fill of wetlands or waters for the purpose of bridge replacement at Bridge # 65 on US 258
between the Roanoke River and SR 1107, as you described in your application dated 22 February
1995. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water:
Quality Certification Number 2735. This certification allows you to use General Permit Number 031
when it is issued by the Corps of Engineers.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If
you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application.
For this approval to be valid, you must follow the- conditions listed in the attached- certification. In
addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your
project.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory
hearing. You must act within 30 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing,
send a written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the
Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and
its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Environmental Management under Section 401
of the Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Domey at 919-733-1786.
Sincerely,
PnH 4r 1,J . P
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Raleigh DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Domey
Central Files
95246.1tr
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
DEM C) 914 ACTION ID: 199401885
Nationwi Permit Requested (Provide Nationwide Permit #): General Permit # 31 SSUF
JOINT FORM FOR
Nationwide permits that require notification to the Corps of Engineers
Nationwide permits that require application for Section 441 certification
WILMINGTON DISTRICT ENGINEER WATER QUALITY PLANNING
CORPS OF ENG24EERS DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ?. r
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRO
P.O. Box 1890 AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890 P.O. Box 29535
ATTN• CESAW-CO-E Raleigh, NC 27626-0535. # MAR 8 ISC5
Telephone [phone] ATTN: MR. SOHN DORNEY
Telephone [phone]?s° -- ONE (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION SHOULD BE SENT TO THE CORPSOF ENGINEERS.
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT.
PLEASE PRINT.
1. Owners Name: North Carolina Department of Transportation, Planning & Environmental Branch
2. Owners Address: P 0 Box 25201; Raleigh NC 27611-
3. Owners Phone Number (Home): --- ' (Work): [phone]
4. If Applicable: Agent's name or responsible corporate official, address, phone number.
H Franklin Vick P .E., Manager
5. Location of work (MUST ATTACH MAP). County: Northampton (8-1300)
Nearest Town or City: Rich Square
Specific Location (Include road numbers, landmarks; etc.): -Bridge # 65 on US 258 between the Roanoke
River and SR 1107
6. Name of Closest Stream/River. Tributary of the Roanoke River
7, River Basin: Roanoke
8. Is this project located in a watershed classified as Trout, SA, HQW, ORW, WS I, or WS H? YES & ] NO [
9. Have any Section 404 permits been previously requested for use on this property? YES ] NO ( 1
If yes, explain. NWo 23 applied for and denied due to "greater than mini imparts"
10. Estimated total number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, located on project site: N/A
L
11. Number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, impacted by the proposed project:
Filled: Permanent fill = 0.03 acre; Temporary fill = 0.52 acre
Drained:
Flooded:

e
Excavated:
Total Impacted: 0.55 permanent and tem Rorary fill sr-rPC -
12. Description of proposed work (Attach PLANS-8 1/2"X 11" drawings only):_ Replacement of the
existing bridge at the same location with a new birdqe structure. A 1060" (1700'mm)
CS will be used at the detour just downstream
13. Purpose of proposed work: To continue to -provide access over this tributary
14. State reasons why the applicant believes that this activity must be carried out in wetlands.- Also, note measures
taken to minimize wetland impacts.
See cover letter.
15. You are required to contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or National Marine Fisheries Service . .
(NUTS) regarding the presence or any Federally listed orpmposed for listing endangered or threatened species or critical
habitat in the permit area that may be affected by the proposed project. Have you done so? YES[ ] NO [ ]
RESPONSES FROM THE USFWS AND/OR NMFS SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
16. You are required to contact the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding the presence of historic
properties in the permit area which may be affected by the proposed project? Have you done,so? YES { ] NO [ ].
RESPONSE FROM THE SHPO SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
17. Additional information required by DEM:
A. Wetland delineation map showing all wetlands, streams, and lakes on the property. N/A
B. If available, representative photograph of wetlands to be impacted by project. N/A
C. If delineation was performed by a consultant, include all data sheets relevant to the placement of the
delineation line. N/A
D. If a stormwater management plan is required for this project, attach copy. N/A
E.
F.
What is land use of surrounding property? Forest
If applicable, what is proposed method of sewage disposal? N/A ?J -

Q.

r Ga
3 ,
t .-.. mse t• ? L
?t t
] 2.-. Horhna 6 . f
Aansonexav,,` Ali ;} acon Vaughan
dleburq "ranerllon Sur
oe 1 Liberia
AJ a:
p + Creek
r•' Elberon
r S Arcola
R
ILr Inez i l .
+ .4
o xt--- ?rN Aro 5, 2 Oatcne;ill
• slxrnq Momcie. l ? I z ? .
? 0u
;?• \. Hope
?:...? .?lasnvrH.e.
/r
Scale of Mites
0 5 10 20 e0
0 70 20 40 48
Scale of Kilometers

H A
t
t
s
1
f
C,
o?
Hr
Y
??ITE .(„IAP
SCALE
1 0 1 2 3 4 MILES
?'??POwtllsrdle
`?• 4j Co4rar
i;' t4
t
jll 6
. 0 Mount Gw
?Askewvrllc Ashland
?T 1 Mrdwarj
Hd.
?r 1 ,1
VICINITY MAP
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY.
a « ?3€. ?' '
o
32
Pis-

pia ` q o

N.C. DEPT. or,t-TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Ci.iCIIT / .. r ? nrnr .. n n . Merl
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY
8.1100101 ( B-1300 )
Replacement of BR #65 on US-258
b/w the Roanoke River and SR 1107
( No. 2 Overflow Structure )
SCALE AS SHOWN

YIRGINIA
CAROLMIA son.^y

.- . 1"A
.?? R.oduc
Murlreesbo. de -a
Iil[ + wrnton;
MA Tr,H i I

, ?! w

?
l 1 i:i r
y
?

! w to ?•?$ft1
S
y
1
? N t<

V
W `
W
d'
Q
W
:3
00%•01
S
V O
C?.
m
ul
d?
O ?Q ?
4. V W
a h
v o
o?

w
F J
C W
1 ?: w
' ti
In s w
w(

em
(+f. . ?
F 1 .' ?i
dId
--3.J
it
N
?
3
?k m z i Q I L'
aJ R<
J l1J
4tWC WQ(
` w Z.
W(i Z_j
zJ
w
LL 1
D
O t Q
w
x \v vi
a o U4
1 Ci °
t Z,
-. fJ
1 ~
O
A' ? Y
f e
LJJ
LLJ
e w t, ?? ? N ? 1
? m F4` ?' : '1 1
j,eG 1
>, °t 6 a LLJ Sd? LtJ
'W Clot ? r i? v?'i ?. 1 > ?? ? p •
t, / L 1.. F? O O 4 I i to t1)
(V Q W W W u? 1. Q:1 1 tr, 01
tn in
5 , Z i ti E`
a s \ Y Y
?tnW V W a•1•`,
21
. N
MATC-,H UAlE STA. 10t300-L-
Jay
s O
0
3
a
m
a19
Zr
i
DIVISION OF HI,CHWAYS
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY
8.1100101 ( B-1300 )
Replacement of BR #65 on US-258
blw the Roanoke River and SR 1107
C No. 2 Overflow Structure )
SCALE AS SHOWN
CNFT'T 2 of S cr_nT t nn.
' ? Ol
MATCH LIN Es?J ID+300-L- n
. +

J
LL
Q-
I
11
Do
Q+
Z?
(2 J
J

fl
0
0
a
0-
1
' w
I
1 ?? J I
o
a I I
? R
I z
I
I g
I
I 3?
I
a
I C1
LLI
I rQ
I ;
I
I ? I
i ;
1
O {
1
1 w I M
Z
1 -
J
L
u? OI
? a

i cs' \ C
A-

' +
?
OG \

I
I - ?? 1
-

. 1
I

? r
,
Q

I

a I

'
o o U) I p
tQ ' n N
+
2 !i _ -°
a
I
4

a I ?
1- I

z l i s ??
I
u, .
+
+
W
QQ0 N
?
?
i cXQ ? ' p w i
I 0 -LI J
w 1
I t` i
i
W ' I Ck +N _

QTC,H LINE

?
~ z
?
u
l? ?
°
Uj _, -
E
E I _ +

`J IJ4

4 T
'
a
~
0 n

a
G
O U
?-
?j
lWL1 - -J 0
O W
Z
W' ? W
.a
CC)
N
U4
J
lu
J
=1 I =1 ?I
J
?- J
4 ?. a.
C5 '?
N.C. DEPT. OF ISRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGIIWAYS
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY
8.1100101 C B-1300 )
Replacement of BR #65 on US-258
b/w the Roanoke River and SR 1107,
C No. 2 Overflow Structure )
SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET ';; of S SEPT. 1994
r

i
r
? o
al a

I Q
S

\ti a
Z
N
J ?
f Q
f 3
fl r uu

w
-. Q

a9 0 ? -o
N `n Q
+? J

O
U1 I
>
3 I
<? i
1 (
I I i Q
---+3
--- -
Li I
V
W
? cry
? -o
-?I -4
i

d1 I
J N ! N CA
z
i

0 o Q.
vU)
_j p
0.Q
:k w 3
L Uj
a? rUJ
? u (J)
U1

i? W
C)
7 J
U t
z
j
o u_ Uj cc
a a l
w

W
a
.O
+
I
.
. ` ?
N"? KZ
2

N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF I11dHWAYS
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY
8.1100101 C B-1300 )
Replacement of BR #65 on US-258
b!w the Roanoke River and SR 1107
t No. 2 Overflow Structure )
SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET _ of 5 SEPT. 1994

ADDRESSES
1. Union Camp Corporation
c/o Monroe Jones
P.O. Box 178
Franklin, VA 23831
SUMMARY
Ha cu.m
1. Permanent Fill in Wetlands............ 0.8130 250
2. Temporary Fill in Wetlands............ 0.2100 8150
3. Total Fill in Wetlands ................ 0.2230 8400
4. Permanent Fill Below O.H.W:........... - 50
5. Temporary Fill below O.H.W. .......... - 45
6. Total Fill bel ow O.H.W. .............. - 95

N.C. DEPT. OF TRAIkSPORTATION ?
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY
8.1100101 < B-1300 )
Replacement of BR 965 on US-258
b/v the Roanoke River and SR 1107
C No. 2 Overflow Structure )
e
i SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET of .5 SEPT. 1994
State of North Carolina IF
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources • •
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary E H N F1
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Division of Environmental Management
August 4, 1993
MEMORANDUM
To: Michelle Wagoner
NCDOT
Through: John DornEq
From: Eric Galamb
DEM
Subject: Preliminary CE for Bridge 65 on US 258
Northampton County
State Project DOT No. 8.1101001, TIP #13-1300
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental Management would not
object to a Categorical Exclusion for this project if after project completion, DOT
removed the temporary fill to the pre-existing elevation and replanted with pre-
construction tree species.
The document should present the costs for replacing the bridge with another bridge
rather than stating, "Extenuating circumstances and costs suggest another alternative".
What would the permanent wetland impacts be if another bridge was installed?
This project as proposed will permanently fill 0.75 acres of wetland.
b1300.com
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

Northampton County, US 258
Bridge No. 65
over Roanoke River Overflow
State Project No. 8.1101001
Federal-Aid Project BRSTP-258(3)
I.D. No. B-1300
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
Date L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch,
Date Nicholas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA

Northampton County, US 258
Bridge No. 65
over Roanoke River Overflow
State Project No. 8.1101001
Federal-Aid Project BRSTP-258(3)
I.D. No. B-1300
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
June 1993
Documentation Prepared at William G. Daniel & Associates, P. A. by:
Thomas McCloskey
Project Engineer
Thomas R. Hepler, P.E.
Project Manager
For The North Carolina Department of Transportation:
L. Gail Grimes, P.E., Unit Head
Consulting Engineering Unit
E. Michelle Wagoner
Project Planning Engineer
Northampton County, US 258
Bridge No. 65
over Roanoke River Overflow
State Project No. 8.1101001
Federal-Aid Project BRSTP-258(3)
I.D. No. B-1300
Bridge No. 65 has been included in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement
location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are
of this action. The project has been classified as a Federal "categorical e;
1.
The
i as a result
All standard procedures and measures, including best management practice l, will be
implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts. No special or u 'que
environmental commitments are necessary.
11. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 65 should be replaced at the existing location with a pre-cast
box culvert as shown by Alternate 1 in Figure 2.
Preliminary hydrographic studies indicate that a single barrel 12-foot wide
culvert should be provided. The length of the culvert should be adequate 1
24-foot roadway section with eight foot shoulders (four feet paved), the ty
to be provided throughout the project limits. The grade of the existing ro,-
retained.
Bridge construction should be "clustered" with nearby projects B-1299 and
will be maintained on-site during the construction period by providing a tei
the east side of the existing structure.
The estimated cost of the project, based on current prices, is $858,000.
the project, as shown in the 1993 - 1999 Transportation Improvement I
concrete
y 10-foot high box
accommodate a
al section that is
wav is to be
1307. Traffic
orarv detour on
estimated cost of
m, is $1,250,000.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
US 258 is classified as a rural minor arterial route in the Statewide Functic
System and is included as a part of the Federal Aid System. In the vicinit)
US 258 has 32-foot pavement width (24-foot travelway and four foot paves
total shoulder width is eight feet. Vertical alignment is generally flat. Ho
in a tangent. The structure is situated 20 feet above the creek bed. The ap
embankments ranging up to 16 feet above natural ground. Land use in the
of the bridge is primarily woodland and farmland. Speed limit is 55 mph.
The current traffic volume of 2800 VPD is expected to increase to
by the year 2015. The projected volume includes 5 % truck-tractor
7% dual-tired vehicles (DTT).
The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was constructed in 1923. The supm
reinforced concrete deck on I-beams. The substructure is composed of
caps, on H-piles.
Overall length is 396 feet. Clear roadway width is 26 feet. The posted
for single vehicles and legal limit for trucks with trailers.
An underground fiber optic cable is located to the west of the existing
underground telephone cable is located to the east.
aal Classification
of the bridge,
shoulders). The
izontal alignment is
proaches are on
immediate vicinity
y 5500 VPD
(TTST) and
consists of a
;d concrete
limit is 28 tons
, and an
Bridge No. 65 has a sufficiency rating of 49.3 compared to a rating of 1001for a new structure.
Five accidents were reported near Bridge No. 65 during the period from
April 30, 1992.
Coordination with local school officials indicated no school bus trips over
IV. ALTERNATIVE
Several replacement alternatives were considered for Bridge No. 74. The
alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
traffic service provided by US 258. "Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is i
age and deteriorated condition. The recommended alternative for Bridge
replacement with a 12-foot wide by 10-foot high reinforced concrete box 1
approximately 80 feet in length. The roadway approaches should be 32 ft
feet travelway and four foot paved shoulders) with a total shoulder width
existing. Since the existing alignment is tangent, the only prudent alignin
replacement of the existing structure on the present alignment. Traffic wi
1, 1989 to
bridge.
do-nothing"
udent due to the
it feasible due to its
o. 65 is
of pavement (24
eight feet to match
t alternative is
be maintained on-
10
site during the construction period due to the high traffic volumes and the lack of a suitable
detour route.
Two on-site detour alternatives were studied for the replacement of Bridge o 65. The
temporary detour for each alternate employs a 60 inch reinforced concrete ipe to carry the
drainage during construction. The approach roadway, for the detour, will list of 20 feet of
travelway with six foot shoulders
The detour alternates are as follows:
Alternate I (Recommended) consists of maintaining traffic on-site with a
structure immediately east of the existing bridge (see Figure 2).
Alternate 2 consists of maintaining traffic on-site with a temporary detour
immediately west of the existing bridge.
V. ESTIMATED COST
Estimated costs of the proposed bridge replacement and two detour
(Recommended)
Alt. I (East Detou:
Structure
Permanent Roadway Approaches
Temporary Detour Structure
Temporary Detour
Structure Removal
Engineering & Contingencies
Right-of-Way, Utilities
Total
Design Speed
Alt. 2
detour
are as follows.
$66,500 $66,500
37,000 37,000
6,000 6,000
572,500 572,500
66,000 66,000
105,000 105,000
5,000 5,000
$858,000 $858,000
60 mph
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 65 should be replaced at its existing location with a pre-cast i
box culvert, incorporating an on-site detour constructed to the east of the
shown by Alternate 1 in Figure 2.
60 mph
rced concrete
ing roadway, as
Widening to the east side was chosen due to the additional cost of relocatin# the fiber optic
cable located on the west side of the roadway.
According to a preliminary hydraulic study, a one barrel 12-foot wide by 1 -foot high
reinforced concrete box culvert will accommodate the flow of the Roanoke River overflow at
this point. The elevation of the new crossing is expected to be approximately the same as the
elevation to the existing bridge. The structure dimensions will be assessed, as necessary,
during final design.
The recommended improvement will include about 500 feet of improved n
The roadway approaches should be 32 feet of pavement (24 feet travelway
shoulders) with a total shoulder width of eight feet to match existing.
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
On December 17, 1992, Gary B. Blank and Richard R. Braham visited the
to verify documented information and gather field data for a thorough asses
impacts incurred by the alternatives being considered. Project B-1300 prop
bridge on US 258 spanning one of the sloughs (overflow channels) in Cypn
northeastern side of the Roanoke River in Northampton County, NC. Proji
constraints required assessment in late fall, so possible effects of conducting
this time are discussed below.
ay approaches.
four foot paved
,-1300 project site
ment of potential
,ses to replace a
,s Swamp on the
A timing
an evaluation at
The investigation examined the vegetation and habitat conditions surroun ' the bridge on US
258 spanning a portion of Cypress Swamp--a complex of sloughs (overflow channels) on the
northeastern side of the Roanoke River in Northampton County, NC. The ' vestigation's
purpose was to (1) search for threatened and/or endangered plants, and evi rice of habitation
by listed animal species (2) identify unique or prime-quality communities, ( ) describe the
current vegetation and wildlife habitats, (4) delineate wetlands, and (5) pro 'de information to
minimize adverse environmental effects of the proposed bridge replacement Project B-1300.
Methods
The project area was a circular plot with a radius of 450 feet, enclosing 14. acres. Plot
center was located in the middle of the current bridge. Plant communities within this plot
were delineated from aerial photographs and ground-checked on site. Fore community types
follow Schafale and Weakley (1990). Within each community, a list of me ber plant species
and general site description was developed on-site. Dominance (ft2/ac) of woody vegetation
layers was determines} by the variable plot method (Husch et al. 1972). Dominance (percent
foliar cover) of herbaceous layers or communities was determined by ocular estimation, using
foliar cover guides developed by Belanger and Anderson (1989). For com unities dominated
by trees, tree age, stem diameter at 4.5 feet above the ground (dbh), and t height were
measured for the largest trees. Age was determined from 2-mm increment rings; dbh and
height were measured using d-tape dendrometers and Abney-level hypsome rs, respectively
(Wilson 1976). Ground distance was determined either by estimation on th ground or by
measurement on aerial photographs, but all other measurements and all species lists were
developed from on-site reconnaissance.
Evidence of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife was sought on-site through clo observation of all
available signs. Habitats were characterized based on plant communities, d typical wildlife
communities associated with these habitats were determined. Special atten on was given to
features indicative of habitat for species listed as threatened, endangered, o deserving special
concern.
Aquatic system features were observed at the existing bridge, upstream, and feet
downstream of the existing structure. Available documentation of water q ity was reviewed
(NCDEM 1989, 1991, 1993). Wetland determinations followed procedure described by the
Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Lab. 19K), and wetland
classification follows Cowardin et al. (1979).
Plant Communities
All land within the project area is naturally forested except for (1) the mowed roadsides which
are about 20 feet wide (occupying 1.1 acres) and (2) the northeastern portion of the project
area which is farmland planted to annual crops. Two forest communities ur: Cypress-Gum
Swamp (Brownwater Subtype), a wetland community, and Coastal Plain B ttomland
Hardwoods (Brownwater Subtype). These two communities are similar to aldcypress-Tupelo
and Sweetgum-Willow Oak, respectively (Eyre 1980). Forests are common in Northampton
County, where 211,383 acres--61 percent of the land--are forested (Thomp on 1990). Much
forest acreage, 43 percent, contains sawtimber-sized trees over 9-inches db . Current county
forest statistics do not distinguish between Cypress--Gum Swamp and Coasl al Plain
Bottomland Hardwoods, and comparisons cannot be made. But all bottoml d communities
occupy 41,635 acres--20 percent of all forest land in Northampton County (Thompson 1990).
The Cypress--Gum Swamp, occupies 12.8 acres (77.5 percent) of the study area. It is all
wetland, and it occurs in the slough, which will be flooded for five to eight months in years
with average precipitation. In years with above average precipitation, the mmunity may be
continuously flooded for 12 months. A drainage ditch, probably dug imm lately prior to
logging the previous stand, runs the length of the study area on the east sid of the current
bridge, but beavers (Castor canadensis) have constructed a small dam under the current bridge.
This dam impounds the water into a shallow lake, raising the water level about three feet
above pre-dam levels. The stand on the west side is also much younger, about 10 years old
compared to about 50 years old on the east side.
The Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods community occupies 0.7 acres ( 5 percent) of the
study area. None of this community is wetland, and it occurs upslope of th Cypress--Gum
Swamp community. This community floods only for very brief periods in ears with much
above average precipitation. Farmland, which occupies 1.5 acre (10 perce t) of the study
area, is not discussed further in this section, since it is annually plowed or iked and planted
to annual row crops, and since natural processes do not dominate. The re ' 'ng land, 1.1
acre (7.5 percent) of the study area, is occupied by the existing road and roadsides, and they
will also not be discussed further in this section. Details of the two forest mmunities, as
they occur in the project area, are provided below.
Cypress--Gum Swamp (Brownwater Subtype)I Wetland 14
The upper canopy of the Cypress--Gum Swamp community contains baldc ress CLxodium
distic li ), water tupelo (Nxssa aquati), swamp blackgum ( Nyssagvlvatic var. i ,
overcup oak (Quercus lv?, swamp cottonwood (PgpWushh?rop lla), d red maple
(Ater rubram). Carolina ash (Fraxinus carolinian American elm ( ), and
laurel oak (Quercus laurifoli a} forma lower canopy. Mistletoe (Ph n r rotinum)
grows on several of the red maple. Canopy dominance averages about 140 (acre. The
tallest trees are baldcypress, measuring 90 feet and .50 years old. The widest trees are laurel
oak, measuring 19-inches dbh. A few large decaying cypress stumps about 42-inches in
diameter occur scattered in the understory. These stumps persist from the f rmer stand that
was regenerated in about 1942. The presence of several multiple-stemmed ees, indicates that
some trees of the current stand sprouted from cut stumps of the previous s d.
The small tree layer contains musclewood (Caoigus caroliniana) and possu haw (11@x
d i . The shrub layer contains Virginia-willow (Itea virginica), and ruumyberry
(Viburnum nudum) Shrubs generally grow in drier microsites, especially on small hummocks,
tree bases, and fallen logs. Foliar cover of the shrub layer averages five rcent.
The ground layer is sparse, owing to the long hydroperiod that limits the gr and cover to tree
bases, fallen logs, old stumps, and small, raised microsites. Foliar cover is enerally less than
five percent, except for the spoil bank from the drainage canal where cover averages 75
percent. It is composed of false-nettle (Boehmeria cy ' drica), lizard's tail Saur-uruscernuus),
seedbox (Lubin sp.), netted chainfern (Woodw ardia areolata), panic gra s (Panicum sp.),
and uniola grass ( nil sp.).
Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods I Non-WetlgaQ.
The upper canopy of the Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods contains sw tgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), cherrybark oak ( c var.
a d' I' ), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), and sugarberry ( 1 is 1 ). The lower
canopy contains laurel oak ( ercus urifali), red maple (Acerb), merican elm
(Ulmus americana), and ash (Fraxinus sp.). Dominance of the overstory a rages 140
ft2/acre, consisting mostly of sweetgum, sugarberry, and oak. The tallest ees are
sweetgums, measuring 90 feet and 50 years old. The widest trees were sw tgums and laurel
oak, both measuring about 18-inches dbh.
The shrub/small tree layer contains possumhaw (Ilex decidua), American h lly (Ilex crpacal,
privet (Ligustrum sing-n- and musclewood (C Wus oliniana). Foliar ver of this layer
is low, about 10 percent. The ground layer contains Japanese honeysuckle ni er
laWnica), greenbriers (Smilax bona-nox and a. rotundifoIi , poison-ivy (T xi n
radi"nsj, rattlesnake fern (Botrychium virginianum), trumpet creeper ( Campsis i ),
cross-vine (An sos 'chus reolata), sedge (Cam sp.), and spike grass
latifolium). Foliar cover of the ground layer averages about 25 percent,
Japanese honeysuckle and spike grass.
Wildlife (General)
Cypress-Gum swamp and Coastal Plain bottomland hardwoods dominate th
site, but conditions on either side of US 258 differ markedly. Upstream th
landowner has established extensive ( > 100 acres) young, bottomland hart
A beaver (Castor canadensi.) dam beneath the existing bridge has created a
upstream, backing water into the lower portions of these stands. Downstre
drainage pattern flows through a band of nearly mature cypress-gum forest
feet wide. Areas north and south of this mature stand have recently been c
According to Dickson et al. (1980), six songbird species may be abundant
cypress forest habitat: Yellow-billed cuckoo (CyCCT amedom), Acw
(Empidonax vi tens}, Tufted titmouse (Pares bigQLQ1), Carolina wren (-I
ludovicianus), Red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivacm), Cardinal (CardinaW care
woodpecker (Pi pubescm) are also probably common here, and an(
songbirds may be present or regular visitors to such forests {Dickson et al.
kingfisher (Megacervle ln) frequents this particular stand and was agg
its territory during our visit. Large wading bird tracks were observed in s
downstream of the bridge.
In young oak-hickory stands the following songbird species are usually abi
al. 1980): Yellow-breasted chat (Ic n virgins), Indigo bunting (Passer
sided towhee (i i o e1 throphthalmus), Field sparrow (591
1?lla Ila),
(D r is di Ior . Cardinal (Cardinals carding i ), Common flicker (i
Golden-winged warbler {Vermivora r}?ryso tt r?), Hooded warbler (Wilsoa
headed cowbird (MolothruS t r , American goldfinch (C dwells testis} n
Winter examination considerably reduces opportunities for observing herl
populations are usually abundant in such habitats. Little evidence of man
observed due to the exceedingly wet conditions, but a possum carcass lay
course the beaver dam dominates this site.
Physical Resources
The terrain in this portion of the Roanoke River floodplain features an exte
swamps and sloughs, oxbows, and shallow drains. Geologically, the projt
Cape Fear Formation, Cretaceous-aged sediments of sandstone and muddy
Coastal Plain physiographic region (Brown 1985). The 40 foot contour lir
the separation between upland and bottomland, and except for the road car
embankment, the project area lies between 35 and 40 feet.
mostly of
B-1300 project
industrial
wood plantations.
large impoundment
im, a braided
approximately 600
mature oak-gum-
a flycatcher
Wrl'._s). Downy
ier 35 species of
980). A Belted
ssively protecting
eral locations
ant (Dickson et
nom), Rufous-
Prairie warbler
aRto aumw'
citrina), Brown-
be common.
species, but their
,I activity was
the road and of
led series of
area lies on the
mdstone of the
generally marks
ructed on an
The modern soil survey for Northampton County due to be published in 19 3 is not yet
available. But being close to the Bertie County line, this project appears or ? the northwestern-
most plate (#1) from that survey. Two soil associations dominate in lowest areas of the
landscape: Dorovan-Bibb-Johnston or Wehadkee-Chewacla (Tant et al. 1990). In either case,
they are hydric soils, nearly level and poorly drained. Differences in drain e are a matter of
slight degree. The Dorovan-Bibb-Johnston soils have a "mucky surface la r with sandy
underlying material or a loamy surface layer and loamy and sandy underly' g material."
Wehadkee-Chewacla soils "have a loamy surface layer and a loamy subsoil "
Samples taken on site had sandy underlying material, indicating that the so' is either Bibb or
Johnston, which are mapped together in the survey and appear to occupy the drains in this
portion of the floodplain.
Aquatic Resources
The effective drainage basin above the B-1300 project site is immense, as a Roanoke River
begins in the Southern Appalachian Mountains in Montgomery County, Vii nia. Entering
North Carolina in northeastern Warren County, it flows southeasterly befor entering
Albemarle Sound at Bachelor Bay. Beginning in the mountains and flowin through the
Piedmont, water in the Roanoke River carries silt and clay sediments, so flik river is classified
as a red water river.
Before flood control structures were built on the Roanoke, much of this bot mland flooded at
least briefly, especially in winter and spring. Sloughs are normally hydrol ically unique,
because water moves both ways depending upon water level in the river. At times of low
water, water moves from the slough into the river, but at times of high wa r, water moves
from the river into the slough. Since 1952 river flow has been more-or-le stabilized.
Natural flooding and sedimentation in the river have been greatly reduced, movement of
water in these sloughs is unidirectional, from Cypress Slough to the river.
The waters of Cypress Slough are classified as C, which means the water is suitable for
agricultural, fish, and wildlife propagation but not for direct contact recrea on and human
consumption (NCDEM 1993). The nearest BMAN site, in the Roanoke Ri er Overflow at
Scotland Neck, was given a "Fair" rating in both 1985 and 1987 (NCDEM 1989, 1991).
According to the report, however, the river at that site is three meters deep 80 meters wide,
and has a sand substrate. Such conditions are totally different from what curs at the B-1300
site (Table 1), so the nearest BMAN rating should not be considered indi(
Table 1. Stream Characteristics Observed At B-1300 Crossing.
Observation Point Downstream Upstream
Substrate Sand and mud Sand and mud
Current Flow sluggish sluggish
Channel width (ft) 8.0 Variable
Bank Height (it) 1.0 .5 to 1.5
Water Depth (ft) 1.5 variable
Water Color Cloudy Clear, dark
Water Odor None Sulfur odor wh en disturbed
Aquatic Vegetation None Duckweed
Adjacent Vegetation Grasses and juncus Cypress-gum
Wetlands Associated Flooded Flooded
Jurisdictional Topics
Wetlands
The extensive wetland surrounding the B-1300 project can be characterized
palustrian system dominated by cypress-gum and associated bottomland har
actuall y part of the larger riverine system drained and seasonally flooded b`
River. Flood control decisions at reservoirs upstream typically affect the p
duration of flooding in the lower Roanoke watershed. Observed in the don
water table was at the surface in the undisturbed forest east of the highway.
occupies a 600-foot wide slough that features many flooded depressions alo
channel. Due to the flat gradient, flow through this system is sluggish but
main channel. With the vegetation between the forest and highway control:
area begins about fifty feet east of the pavement.
Soils here are dark, fully saturated Bibb or Johnston as indicated above.
color sampled on this site was 2.5 YR 4l2.
Protected Species
Under federal law, any federal action which is likely to result in a negative
protected plants and animals is subject to review by the US Fish and Wildli
(USFWS) under one or more provisions of the Endangered Species Act (E;
the case of state-funded action, where federal wetland permits are likely to
example, the USFWS can require consultation to insure that the proposed a
jeopardize any endangered, threatened or protected species. Even in the at
actions, the USFWS has the power, through provisions of Section 9 of the
s a forested
woods. It is
the Roanoke
iodicity and
ant season, the
This forest
g one primary
)t stagnant in the
d, the forested
Munsell soil
ipact to federally
Service
i of 1973. In
required, for
on does not
ice of federal
A, to exercise
jurisdiction on behalf of a protected plant or animal. The USFWS and oth4
agencies also exercise jurisdiction in this resource area in accordance with
Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 USC 661 et seq).
laws are also designed to protect certain plants and animals where statewid,
decline.
r wildlife resource
ie Fish and
North Carolina
populations are in
FedemUy Listed Species
The US Fish and Wildlife Service Raleigh Field Office has identified only a Red-cockaded
Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) and Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) endangered
species occurring in Northampton County ( Mignogne letter 12111/1992). Each of these is
discussed below; neither was observed.
Bald eagles ( i to leucocephalus) typically require large bodies of %
fish populations and roosting habitat in proximity to this food supply (Lu
According to Luukkonen et al., "good perch trees are the most important
forest stands for eagles." Eagles appear to prefer large, open-crowned pE
roost habitat requires large trees with open structures at low densities.
As evidenced in the discussion above, such conditions do not exist within
close enough to the project limits to require further consideration of this
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoide s or s) (RCW) nesting colonies usi
mature pine (preferably Longleaf) stands with open understories, contiguou
pines dominate the surrounding forest to provide suitable foraging habitat.
consists of pine or pine-hardwood (50 percent or more pine) stands 30 year
(Henry 1989). Although some colonies may be found in pine stands where
encroachment has occurred, this situation is relatively rare.
As was noted in the discussion of plant communities, habitat suitable for
does not occur in or anywhere close to the study area. No pines were of
corridor.
State Listed Species
The NC Natural Heritage Program indicates that it has no records of any 1
proximity to this site, though there are records from the nearby Bull Neck
1/12/93).
Unique and/or Prime-Quality Habitat. No unique and/or prime quality habi
during the field survey. Occupying 20 percent of all forest land, both forest
common in Northampton County (Thompson 1990). Both forest communiti
sawtimber-sized trees over 9-inches dbh, but 43 percent of the forests in N(
are classified as sawtimber (Thompson 1990). No individual, very-large or
with abundant
men et al. 1989).
ra.cteristics of
trees, and eagle
project area nor
illy occur in
with areas where
Suitable habitat
of age or older"
nidstory hardwood
colonization
in the
species in
up (Kelly letter
it was observed,
communities are
contain
mpton County
-old trees
occur within the study area.
Closing US 258 during construction is not a feasible alternative since traf:
and no practical offsite detour exists. Because an on-site detour is requirt
one of examining how the existing structure will be replaced and which si
the preferable location for a temporary structure. Arguably, the soundest
alternative is to replace the current bridge with another bridge. Extenuati
costs suggest another alternative.
The proposed replacement action will install a 12-foot wide by 10-foot hij
carry the present flow. The culvert will be covered with fill 80 feet wide
somewhat wider than the existing causeway due to required pavement and
the new construction. Thus, 0.75 acres of wetland will be rmanenti fi
studies indicate that since t e current n a-e=:F ?-ar Ilibefore
the river, the proposed structural change would not result in water
flooding regimes.
However, resident beaver populations will probably fmd such construction
own dam-building needs, with predictable consequences. A culvert could
raise the height of their current dam, flooding additional bottomland upstrc
in flooded portions of the hardwood plantations.
From an environmental standpoint, placing a detour on the upstream (west)
bridge would be preferable, since less mature forest would have to be clear,
temporary detour to the east is proposed because a fiber-optic cable is burie
highway. The temporary detour would result in a temporary filling of less
wetland. Material would remain in place six to nine months and will be rei
project completion. Forest loss would be temporary because the trees woul
regenerate after removal of the fill material provided the area is not regular
mowing. The long-term effect will be creation of younger forest of the sar.
Accelerated soil erosion can occur during construction and, generally, acre
contributes to soil loss. Without proper controls, eroded sediments are def
clog and restrict drainage, and smother aquatic organisms, especially botta
bottom-reproducing species. These effects are largely avoidable if suitable
control erosion during construction. To keep erosion at acceptable levels d
Best Management Practices will be followed.
Ruts and soil compaction caused by operating machinery in the forested bott
create small water impoundments by restricting water movement. Because
vegetation is extremely sensitive to changes in the depth and duration of floc
impoundments could cause existing trees to die or fail to regenerate adequaN
taken to restrict vehicles and other machinery from operating within the bott
drainage regimes, to which the current vegetation is adapted, are preserved.
volume is high
the issue becomes
of the highway is
circumstances and
box culvert to
the toe of slope,
?oulder width for
d. Hydrologic
.ood controls on
under current
:er suits their
w the beavers to
and killing trees
de of the current
. However, a
west of the
an 1.5 acres of
)ved following
naturally
disturbed by
type.
a erosion
i downstream,
elling and
is taken to
construction,
could
ag, sma=ll
. Care must be
Hand, so natural
Permit Coordination
A permit will not be required from the Corps of Engineers because the Nat onwide Section
404 permit provisions for Categorical Exclusion are applicable, and the provisions of 33 CFR
330.5 (b) and 330.6 will be followed.
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the North Caro ' Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR), will be requir . This certificate
is issued for any activity which may result in a discharge into waters for w 'ch a federal
permit is required.
Erosion and sedimentation control measures will be strictly enforced during construction to
minimize unnecessary impacts to stream and wetland ecosystems. Best m agement practices
will also be implemented.
Compensatory wetland mitigation is not required under a Nationwide Pe ' . The temporary
impacts predicted as a result of an on-site detour do not permanently alter a wetland
functions in evidence at this site. Thus, area permanently filled and therefo a no longer
functioning as wetland will be very small.
Literature Cited
Belanger, R.P., and R.L. Anderson. 1989. A guide for visually assessing rown densities of
loblolly and shortleaf pines. USDA For. Ser., Southeast For Exp, ta. Res Note SE-
352.
Brown, P. M. 1985. Geologic map of North Carolina. Div. of Land Res., r ept. of Natl.
Res. and Community Dev., Raleigh, NC.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classi cation of wetlands
and deepwater habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79131. Fis and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Dept of Interior: Washington, D.C. 103 p.
Dickson, J. G., R. N. Conner, and J. H. Williamson. 1980. Relative abundance of breeding
birds in forest stands in the southeast.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delinea ' manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Expert ent Station,
Vicksburg MS.
Eyre, F.H. (Ed.) 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada Soc. of Amer.
For., Washington, DC. 148 p., map.
Henry, V. G. 1989. Guidelines for Preparation of Biological Assessments
for the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker. US Fish and Wildlife Service,
Atlanta, GA. 13 p. and appendices.
Husch, B., C. I. Miller, and T. W. Beers. 1972. Forest mensuration. The
NY. 410 p.
Evaluations
heast Region,
Press Co.,
Luukkonen, D. R.; T. J. Smith; D. N. Chester; J. D. Fraser; and D. F. S uffer. 1989.
Ecology, habitat and management of bald eagles at B. Everett Jordan Lake, North
Carolina. Project Final Report. Dept. Fisheries and Wildlife Scien s, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.
NCDEM. 1989. Benthic macroinvertebrate ambient network (BMAN) wa r quality review
1983-1988. Water Quality Tech. Rept. No. 89-08. NC Dept. of E V., Health, and
Nat. Res., Div. Env. Mgt., Water Qual. Sect., Raleigh, NC.
NCDEM. 1991. Biological assessment of water quality in North Carolina eams: benthic
macroinvertebrate data base and long term changes in water quality, 1983-1990. NC
Dept. of Env., Health, and Nat. Res., Div. Env. Mgt., Water Qual. Sect., Raleigh,
NC.
NCDEM. 1990. Classifications and water quality standards assigned to the waters of the
Roanoke River Basin. NC Dept. Envir. Health, and Nat. Res.: Ral igh, North
Carolina.
Schafale, M. P. and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural co munities of North.
Carolina, Third Approximation. N. C. Natl. Heritage Prog., Div. f Parks and
Recreation, N. C. Dept. of Environ., Health, and Natl. Res., Ralei 325 p.
Tant, P. L., R. H. Ranson, J. A. Gagnon, E. W. Mellete, I. M. Allen, anW. A. Hayes, Jr.
1990. Soil survey of Bertie County, North Carolina. USDA Soil Cc?nservation Service
Thompson, M. T. 1990. Forest Statistics for the Northern Coastal Plain of Vorth Carolina,
1990. USDA, For. Serv., Southeast. For. Expt. Sta. Res. Bul SE-1 3. 52 p.
Webster, W. D.; J. D. Parnell; and W. C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of a Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland. Univ. of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hip, NC. 255 p.
Wilson, R. L. 1976. Elementary forest surveying and mapping. Oregon Stake Univ. Book
Stores, Inc., Corvallis. 1 p.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of?an inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "categorical exclusion" due to its limited scope and
insignificant environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have a significant adverse effect on the q .ty of the human
or natural environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and sped ications, and best
management practices.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning re ulation. No
significant change in land use is expected to result from construction of the Project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-wa acquisition will be
limited. No relocation a expected with implementation of the proposed ternative.
r
An underground teipphone able will have to be relocated due to the recom ended temporary
detour. The overall conflicts for the project are considered low.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project i not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
Since the bridge is to be replaced in its present location, the project is
Farmland Protection Policy Act.
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Histc
Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the advisory council on Historic
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800
requires that if a federally funded, licensed, or permitted project has an eff{
listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisc
Historic Preservation be given an opportunity to comment.
The existing bridge, built in 1923, is the only structure in the project area.
reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Officer and determined not to
National Register; therefore, no further compliance with Section 106 is ret
The State Historic Preservation Officer has also reviewed the
project and determined that .
The project does not involve any Section 4(f) properties. There are no 3
historic sites, recreational facilities or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of
significance in the vicinity of the project.
from the
c Preservation
reservation's
Section 106
on a property
Council on
The structure was
eligible for the
aspects of the
wned parks,
state or local
The project is located with the Northern Piedmont Air Quality Control Re
air quality for Northampton County has been determined to be in complia
Ambient Air Quality Standards. Since this project is located in an area w
implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any transportation control me
conformity procedures of 23 CFR 770 do not apply to this project.
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, its im
levels and air quality will be insignificant. Noise levels could increase durin
will be temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall
accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina
in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the asses
requirements of FHPM 7-7-3 (highway traffic noise) and FHPM 7-7-9 (air c
additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environmer
Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater S
North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management
with an on-site exploration, revealed no underground storage tanks or hazan
the project area.
Northampton County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regul
approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 4.
floodplain area to be affected is not considered to be significant. There are
alternatives to crossing the floodplain area.. All reasonable measures will t
minimize any possible harm.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no serious adverse
effects will result from implementation of the project.
i. The ambient
with the National
the State
-es. the
Lct on noise
construction but
e done in
P for air quality
) and no
Health and
Lion and the
action, combined
is waste sites in
Program. The
amount of
practical
taken to
B-1300
BRI GE NO. 65
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY
NORTH APPROACH
SOUTH APPROACH
Si E VIEW
FIGURE 3
-71 r
\ \ •` ?;? ` i !`n I '? '` 1.1 i \ ?, ?.
(di
?'"?b9•-4{_^•? ?" _? elm - _•-- _?`„ / - -:._ '._ _ ` ? _,...... ts'1
;nz
258 u I
561
7G
it ,
I
it
a?
v.
J
s
1
s'
C
.1
\
\
r. u'•
•% __= o Q.vnvo!C S\ .1 l\\ tiff: ...
1
1
•1
t
it
•I:
,• O
- E i
I Y•
I
` ` \??'' .. •.<? % X45--???\? '.?.? / ?": %:: `. _ . c Sp . - °,, ,\ ?- rViii ii:ii rr..=c ... ....
,:?.r?= .• , ='v. :?::?'?':"µ' art: ?E • ??':' )\? ? +??:':.:ti/ a :\ \ \
- - - •-?-• :?• : \. • ? -? ...::: ? 100-
YEAR FL D.
\
r.L
i
•::e:•... .v. \
k. -N
r!Y.. ?-••
- 'ter V
\\'
... .,?:;::•:: ?•?:: ? . Rio
GE NO. 6v
,,:...
1
yyr,•i ., .:..:•
1
. •.
_- Q
- 1
V
x:
=' -:?:v:?::::•:b:::t.;: .:ASS; :: .;v::•i:•:::• •?;: •:::.; ; - :•.i'ri:•s?; :?:j;•;•i:;?;:::;
-mn
:: ?;.:.::... :: w :•:: .
BREDGE N10. 64
y ::; ? ?;•:: .. .• .::-: ::::_;.:::•:::::?:.:.. -.? ORMAI'iPTON COUNT)
' `j•4-.?-?n}?? -:;?'y`:N••.. :?;'••: :tea. .:: .v. •:V::::.•.;-:: J.`-; :':::::: :::.:': ::: :': " :. ?V:?.•''? -. - _ -. _
I FIGURE 41,
Bryontcwn 1 1109
8 '-O
1114 44 1113 ''•' ' 1.0
?b co / 1109
1117
. •:'Y
Creek
1108
\`ti 4 RICH SQUARE
1136 ppp 1057
1 -
??r?4'9e,s r?s .0 1553
? `•??i FAP 308
\ 5 1104
HALIFAX I NORTHAMPTON .o
COUNTY COUNTY
110:
?s .
1107
? ? -: is Y:{. •: '•.
O
O
258
(1106
.r-/---
1 . ?/ Pleas t Hill 6 argarettsvi lle
Henrico Vul tares Gasto r d8 88 Sevem •'Hrhr?.n-
_ 6 Seab and Cs?'
d ?p? umber Pendlet 35
I R nr Galatia?
?Sf
:GSrysbur Conway ( 158
158 RT AMPTON 5
10 Milwaukee g
)a k ?1 Potecasi 7
I K + Lasker
_.•- `I 258
ll •?Woodlan
George
` 5 ! ryt 35
v
ntown c 561
Z Rich Srruar
7 ?
NOR CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TR SPORTATION
HWAYS
DIVI IONS OF HIG
w PLA? G AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BR CH
NORT AMPTON COUNTY
RIDGE NO. 65
ON 258/NC 561 OVER
ROANO E RIVER OVERFLOW
B-1300
0 mile 1 FIG.I
B-1300
BRIDGE NO. 65
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY
NORTH APPROACH
SOUTH APPROACH
,E VIEW
FIGURE 3
- __ _ '_ _ :..• vim:,'' ...:.?',.?' :J.'; ; :"::.-e'.
_ -r
6. .. A-Z
?:,,,•:
•.Y?
?m \1,
\% ? O •111 i \ :?1a F9: .Ay -•:\.'Q':,•µ:•ia¢y?':;:
\ kyv" Idaoou uvaA-OoI
-- p•
°II
7 1
3
• .?Y C
l
r
rr.
11
I
\
r 1
1
1 ?\
1
I 1 ^
\ 1 -
1 =
.7.
it
I
1
1
1
l
I
r; a
n
/
u
'"r • c
\
I t
I 1
"Y^
I
\_ 1
?• II
/
a li
I • 11 ? • li.??
U v 'r{: ?.? 11
r:::.• :ri:: t... ::.:...t:
11' \? :i'•??: ;rt ?,'?.':• ? •'N.^:'"?:: ter: •• - ._ ??T'- _
/ • '•• . "? '•..10:.:,:.x,..• ,?-. 'M'- ..?' ? /
• i n 85Z t95 ??? "?. ps ' :^d,;,, _? _•w•- .,m- ^*' --.u- L "` ?"...-
N ? •- _ - Z? _;t
f / Wei. 211

,Y
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS Gi
GOVERNOR
113 Airport Drive
Suite 100
P.O. Box 850
Edenton, NC 27932
March 3, 1997
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6512 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 105
Raleigh, NC 27615
?s Zy?
D B. GA JR.
U
SECRETARY
RECEIVED
NO 05 1997
-'NV1R01V%VTq SCIFN
SUBJECT: Request for Modification of Department of the Army Permit o.
198200031 for Bridge No. 65 in Northhampton County, TIP to. B-9300;
State Project No. 8.1101001
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer:
Item a. of the special conditions of the subject permit states: "Constr ction and
restoration activities will not occur within waters of the United States, includi g
wetlands, from February 1 through June 30 of any year. The proposed deto r fill and
pipe culvert at Bridge No. 65 (TIP B-1300) may remain in place over the res rictive
period; however, no active construction or restoration will take place over thi period."
The purpose of this request is to allow for resumption of normal, safe traffic flows
across the new bridge structure. All structural work will be completed o/a March 14,
1997. Traffic resumption at design speeds can only be restored following th
installation of guard rails along both sides of the approachways. Guard rail on the
detour side of the roadway cannot be installed until the temporary fills have been
removed. The contractor anticipates that all miscellaneous work including a proachway
paving and installation of guard rail on opposite side of roadway from detour will be
completed by April 11, 1997. BeNveen April 11 and April 25 detour fill mate ial above
wetland elevations can be removed. The contractor has further indicated that, with
regulatory authorization, the temporary fills within the wetland can be removed during
the week of April 25 through May 2. Guardrail installation can then be completed o/a
May 16, following which normal, safe traffic flows can be restored. Reforestation efforts
can be accomplished between November 15 and December 1, 1997.
Based upon the desirability to shift from a "Work Zone" to a normal traffic
pattern, it is requested that the permit be modified to allow for removal of temporary fills
in the wetland from April 25 through May 2, 1997.
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Courier: 10-62-26
t
-At
Page 2
March 3, 1997
Mr. Alsmeyer
I have consulted with Ms. Sara Winslow, Biological Supervisor with t e Division
of Marine Fisheries, and she has indicated willingness to modify the morato ium to
permit this activity so long as certain safeguards are put in place. Theses eguards
are:
1. Strict maintenance of sedimentation controls; including silt fenci g etc.
2. Site visit with DMF the week preceding proposed work to confr the level of
water in the wetland area.
3. Daily phone coordination with the DMF office each morning of t proposed
work week to confirm that water from the river has not reached t e work site.
A representative of the Resident Engineer, or the contractor will ake a cell
phone report to the Division Environmental Officer at 8:00 A. M. ach
morning. This report will consist of a water surface elevation at he work
zone, read directly from a pre-set, graduated rod or stake. The ocation of
this graduated device will be approved by the DMF during the re-
construction field review.
The Department feels that these safeguards are reasonable and will insure that
knowledge of unanticipated water releases upstream of the site in the Roa oke River; or
major storm events is made available to the DMF so that that agency can roperiy
evaluate the risks to the important fishery resources.
Please call me if you have any questions or comments. Thank
and assistance in this important matter.
Sincerely,
M. Randall Turner. Division Environmental 1
Planning & Environmental Branch-Division
cc: Ms. Sara Winslow, NCDMF
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS
VNIs. Cyndi Bell; NCDWQ
Mr. John Hefner, USFWS
Mr. D. R. Conner, PE., NCDOT
Mr. H. Franklin Vick. RE., NCDOT
for your time
cer
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF January 31, 1997
Regulatory Branch
SUBJECT: for-1r1Ds.,1.99'4b1885,199401886, and 1994011
General Permit No. 198200031

Mr. M. Randall Turner
Division Environmental Officer
Planning and Environmental Branch -Division 1
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Post Office Box 850
Edenton, North Carolina 27932
Dear Mr. Turner:
I030
Reference is made to our June 16, 19_? confirmin
of the Army permit authorization of your proposed con
replacement of Bridge No. 65 (TIP No. B-1300, State P
8.1101001), by general permit No. 198200031. The pro
located on an unnamed tributary to the Roanoke River,
between the Roanoke River and S.R. 1107, southwest of
in Northampton County, North Carolina. The confirmat
conditioned that work would not occur within waters c
States, including wetlands, from February 1 through
year. By your January 10, 1997 letter, you requested
to allow a maximum of three days operation of a crane
stream bottom between February 1 and February 15, 1991,
Based on our review of the information you have
coordination with the National Marine Fisheries Serv
Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, we have deter
proposed modification would have only a minimal adve
aquatic resources. Therefore, the authorization is
allow operation of a crane within the stream bottom
for a maximum of three days between February 1 and F
inclusive. It is understood that all conditions of t.
50'
387 and
.04%, tl
a?
Department
truction of
.oj ect No.
ect is
on US 258
Rich Square,
on was
the United
ne 30 of any
modification
in the
rovided, and our
e and the North
ned that the
e effect on the
reby modified to
Bridge No. 65
ruary 15, 1997,
original
??

2
authorization remain applicable, including the seas<
all other activities within waters of the United Sty
expiration date of the general permit is unchanged.
within wetlands or on stream banks should use mats.
nal restriction on
tes, and that the
Equipment working
If you have questions, contact Mr. Eric Alsmey r, Raleigh
Regulatory Field Office, telephone [phone], Ixtension 23.
Sincerely,
Copies Furnished:
1
?Lz . .
O
?C Kenneth Jolly
Manager, Raleigh
Field Office
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Regulatory