The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About19950978 Ver 1_Complete File_19950911 JAMES B. HUNT JR. GOVERNOR STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TP ANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 959-79 R. SAMUEL HUNT III SECRETARY September 7, 1995 Regulatory Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office P. O. Box 1890 Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890 Dear Sir: SUBJECT: Richmond County, Replacement of Bridge No. 37 over Big Mountain Creek on NC 73. TIP No. B-1336, State Project No. 8.2311501, Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-6491(2). Attached for your information are copies of the categorical exclusion action classification form and the natural resources technical report for the subject project. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a programmatic "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 Water Quality 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. SEP I 11995 w? GRC ;WATER U?4lITy If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Gordon Cashin at (919) 733-3141, Extension 315. Sincerely, H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager Planning and Environmental Branch GEC/plr Attachments cc: Mr. Scott McLendon, COE, Wilmington Mr. John Dorney, NCEHNR, DEM Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch Mr. Don Morton, State Highway Engineer - Design Mr. A. L. Hankins, Hydraulics Unit Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, State Roadway Design Engineer Mr. F. E. Whitesell, PE, Division 8 Engineer Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and Environmental Branch Ms. Stacy Baldwin, Project Planning Engineer NC 73 Bridge No. 37 Over Big Mountain Creek Richmond County Federal Aid Project BRSTP-6491(2) State Project 8.1580201 T.I.P. No. B-1336 CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION AND NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS APPROVED: 'Z. A? KH. Franklin Vick PE Manager Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT 7 Z B 195 DATE icholas L. Gra , PE tivision Administrator, FHWA • ti NC 73 Bridge No. 37 Over Big Mountain Creek Richmond County Federal Aid Project BRSTP-6491(2) State Project 8.1580201 T.I.P. No. B-1336 CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION July 1995 Documentation Prepared By: MA Engineering Consultants, Inc. -Z7- 95 /c? Shihchen (David) Fuh, Ph.D, PE Project Manager for North Carolina Department of Transportation J.A. Bissett, Jr., PE, Unit ead Consultant Engineering Unit aa&? 4-, Stacy Y. ald in Project Manager Consultant Engineering Unit `?????f•I •If/If IK CAR01 ?•` Ov . ......... / ••• FXSESS/'%- 4''•? ?? SEAL 19732 cPL-• ?'6/ ryEE?• .• -HEIN '000m Iset,"" f ?' v NC 73 Bridge No. 37 Over Big Mountain Creek Richmond County Federal Aid Project BRSTP-6491(2) State Project 8.1580201 T.I.P. No. B-1336 1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS All standard procedures and measures, including Best Management Practices, will be implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts to the project area and the cattle pond located north of the project. Any agricultural land impacted by construction of the temporary detour shall be restored to its natural condition. NC 73 Bridge No. 37 Over Big Mountain Creek Richmond County Federal Aid Project BRSTP-6491(2) State Project 8.1580201 T.I.P. No. B-1336 Bridge No. 37 is included in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion". I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS For the Summary of Environmental Commitments, see page i. II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Bridge No. 37 will be replaced at the existing location as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure 2. The recommended replacement structure consists of a bridge 52 meters (171 feet) long and 9.2 meters (30 feet) wide. This structure will provide two 3.6-meter (12-foot) travel lanes with 1.0-meter (3- foot) shoulders on each side. The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing grade at this location. The existing roadway will be widened to a 7.2-meter (24-foot) pavement width, to provide two 3.6- meter (12-foot) travel lanes, and 1.8-meter (6-foot) unpaved shoulders on each side throughout the project limits. A. temporary on-site detour will be used to maintain traffic during the construction period. Estimated cost, based on current prices, is $1,229,000. The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program, is $592,000 ($575,000-construction; $17,000-right-of-way). III. EXISTING CONDITIONS The project is located in the northern portion of Richmond County, approximately 6 kilometers (4 miles) northwest of Ellerbe, North Carolina (see Figure 1). The area is rural woodlands and agricultural in nature. NC 73 is classified as a rural major collector in the Statewide Functional Classification System and is a Federal-Aid Highway. This route is not a designated bicycle route. In the vicinity of the bridge, NC 73 has a 6-meter (20-foot) pavement width with 1.8-meter (6-foot) shoulders (see Figures 3 and 4). The roadway grade is relatively flat through the project area. The existing bridge is located on a tangent which extends approximately 305 meters (1000 feet) east and 15 meters (50 feet) west from the structure. The roadway is situated approximately 6 meters (20 feet) above the creek bed. The current traffic volume of 900 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to 1500 VPD by the year 2018. The projected volume includes 1% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 3% dual- tired vehicles (DT). The posted speed limit is 90 kilometers per hour (55 miles per hour) in the project area. Bridge No. 37 is an eight-span structure that consists of a reinforced concrete deck on steel I-beams. The substructure consists of timber caps on timber piles, sit caps on piles, and reinforced concrete posts and beams. The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was constructed in 1929. The overall length of the structure is 52.1 meters (171 feet). The clear roadway width is 6.1 meters (20.1 feet). The bridge is not currently posted for weight limits. Bridge No. 37 has a sufficiency rating of 16.9, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure. The existing bridge is considered structurally deficient. There are no utilities attached to the existing structure. However, overhead and buried cable lines parallel the existing bridge on the north side of the roadway throughout the project area. No accidents have been reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 37 during the period from April 1991 to March 1994. Eight school buses cross the bridge daily. 2 IV. ALTERNATIVES Two alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 37 were studied. Each alternative consists of a bridge 52 meters (171 feet) long and 9.2 meters (30 feet) wide. The alternatives studied are shown on Figure 2 and are as follows: Alternative 1 (Recommended) - involves replacement of the structure along the.existing roadway alignment. Improvements to the approach roadways will be required for approximately 60 meters (200 feet) in each direction from the bridge. A temporary on-site detour will be provided during the construction period north (upstream) of the existing structure. The temporary detour will consist of a bridge 30 meters (100 feet) long and 7.2 meters (24 feet) wide, located about 12 meters (40 feet) north of the existing structure. The design speed for this alternative is 100 kilometers per hour (60 miles per hour). Alternative 1 is recommended because it maintains the existing horizontal alignment, which is superior to the proposed alignment for Alternative-2. Additionally, Alternative 1 has less impact on the environment than Alternative 2 because of the additional roadway approach work for Alternative 2.. Alternative 2 - involves replacement of the bridge at a new location immediately north of the existing structure. Improvements to the alignment on the bridge approaches include approximately 150 meters (500 feet) to the east and 135 meters (450 feet) to the west. The design speed of this alternative is 100 kilometers per hour (60 miles per hour). The existing structure will serve as an on- site detour during the construction period. This alternative is not recommended because of the reverse horizontal curves that will be required to tie into the existing roadway at the eastern end of the project. The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not acceptable due to the traffic service provided by NC 73. The North Carolina Department of Transportation Division 8 concurs that traffic be maintained on- site instead of closing the road during construction because the secondary roads available for a detour have poor alignment. The pavement is relatively poor and a load limit bridge is on the route. This bridge is a narrow wooden bridge with a 15 Ton SV and 18 Ton TTST limit. The Richmond County School. Superintendent indicates that maintenance of traffic on-site during the construction period is preferable. "Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition. V. ESTIMATED COSTS The estimated costs for the two alternatives are as follows: Structure Roadway Approaches Detour Structure and Approaches Structural Removal Engineering and Contingencies (Recommended) I Alternative 2 Alternative 1 $ 400,140 $ 400,140 107,939 252,184 495,245 0 26,676 26,676 170,000 121,000 29.000 33.500 Total 1 $ 1,229,000 1 $ 833,500 VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS Bridge No. 37 will be replaced at its existing location, as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure 2, with a new structure having a length of approximately 52 meters (171 feet). Improvements to the existing approaches will be necessary for a distance of about 60 meters (200 feet) in each direction from the bridge. The Division Engineer concurs with this recommended alternative. A 7.2-meter (24-foot) pavement width with 1.8-meter (6-foot) shoulders on each side will be provided on the approaches (see Figure 4). A 9.2-meter (30-foot) clear width is recommended on the replacement structure in accordance with the current North Carolina Department of Transportation Bridge Policy. NC 73 is classified as a rural major collector; therefore, criteria for a rural major collector was used for the bridge replacement. This will provide a 7.2-meter (24-foot) travelway with 1.0-meter (3-foot) shoulders across the structure. The design speed is 100 kilometers per hour (60 miles per hour). During the construction period, maintenance of traffic on-site with a temporary detour is necessary. Otherwise, traffic will have to be detoured along existing secondary roads. This detour route is considered unacceptable due to poor alignment, relatively poor pavement, and a load limit bridge on the route. The on-site detour alignment passes through a pasture. A fence is required along the detour alignment during phase one of construction to prevent cattle from crossing the detour. 4 Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, the new structure is recommended to have a length of approximately 52 meters (171 feet). The bridge will have a 0.3% minimum slope in order to facilitate drainage. The elevation of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing bridge so that there will be no increase to the existing 100-year floodplain elevation. The length and height of the new structure may be increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by further hydrologic studies. VII. NATURAL RESOURCES A biologist visited the project site on October 18, 1994 to verify documented information and gather field data for a thorough assessment of potential impacts that could be incurred by a proposed bridge replacement project. The investigation examined the vegetation surrounding the highway bridge in order to: 1) search for State and federally protected plants and animal species; 2) identify unique or prime-quality communities; 3) describe the current vegetation and wildlife habitats; 4) identify wetlands; and 5) provide information to assess (and minimize adverse) environmental effects of the proposed bridge replacement. Biotic Communities Plant Communities Three distinct plant community types occur within the immediate area of the proposed project. Specific communities exhibited slight variation dependent upon location and physical characteristics of the site (soils, topography, human uses, etc.). Communities are described below. Mixed Hardwood Forest: This plant community is adjacent to Big Mountain Creek and on sloping areas surrounding Big Mountain Creek. A narrow intermittent wetland is found in the northeast quadrant of the project. The canopy is composed of river birch (Betula nigra), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), white oak (Quercus alba), red maple (Acer rubrum), and a few longleaf pine (Pinus palustris). The sub-canopy include the canopy species plus American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), redbud (Cercis canadensis), and American holly (Ilex opaca). The' shrub/sapling layer is composed of saplings of hickory (Carya spp. ), yellow poplar, and red maple. The herb/vine layer is composed of greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum). Button bush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) is found along Big Mountain Creek. 5 Urban/Disturbed: This community classification includes disturbed bridge and roadside margins in the vicinity of the project. This area is characterized primarily by invasive vines, grasses and herbs including: trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), coral honeysuckle (Lonicera sempervirens), poison ivy, grape (Vitis spp.), plantain (Plantago spp.), cane (Arundinaria gigantea), greenbrier, and johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense). The shrub/sapling layer is composed of sweetgum, yellow poplar, and black cherry (Prunus serotina). Agricultural: Agricultural land is found adjacent to the existing roadway. The agricultural land is currently not cultivated. A canopy is developed providing a wind-break between fields and is composed of loblolly pine and sycamore (Platanus occidentalis). The sub-canopy trees include black cherry. Herbs and grasses include horseweed (Conyza canadensis), fescue grass (Festuca spp.), and mouseear chickweed (Cerastium vulgatum). Wildlife (General) Terrestrial: The project area consists of primarily roadside urban/disturbed, agricultural, and forested areas. The forested areas provide cover and protection for many indigenous wildlife species nearby the project area. The forested areas adjacent to Big Mountain Creek and associated ecotomes serve as valuable habitat. The forest bordering Big Mountain Creek has all the necessary components (food, water, protective cover) for mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians. Sighting or evidence (tracks, scat, burrows, nests, etc.) were noted for the following species of mammals including Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginimv) and raccoon (Procyon lotor). Mammals likely to inhabit the area include eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and deer (Odocoileus virginianus). The observed bird species are typical of a rural piedmont setting where a patchwork of habitat types are available. Species encountered in the forested areas and nearby Big Mountain Creek include turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), pine warbler (Dendroica pinus), wood duck (Aix sponsa), and tufted titmouse (Pares bicolor). Approximately twenty Canada geese (Branta canadensis) were observed on a nearby pond. Reptiles and amphibians typical of these communities include the eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), and Fowler's Toad (Bufo woodhousei). 6 Aquatic: Big Mountain Creek supports aquatic invertebrates and several species of fish for recreational fishing. Aquatic invertebrates observed included mayflies (Ephemeroptera). Game species present are redfin pickerel (Esox americanus), redhorse sucker (Moxostoma spp.), largemouth bass (Micropeterus salmoides), and sunfish (Lepomis spp.). The creek and adjacent banks also provide suitable benthic and riparian habitat for amphibians and aquatic reptiles such as the eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), northern dusky salamander (Desmognatlnis fuscus), frogs (Rana spp.), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), and several snake species. Physical Resources Soil Richmond County is located within the Triassic Basin System of the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The Triassic Basin is at lower altitudes than the surrounding landscape and local relief is less than most Piedmont regions. Elevations in the immediate project area range from 88 meters (290 feet) along the creek bottom to 93 meters (305 feet) along the roadside. The Triassic rocks are shales, and dark and light colored sandstones, mudstones, siltstones and conglomerates. Local changes in subsurface geology are common, and large, homogeneous masses of a single rock type are rare. Soils in the project vicinity include the presence of Chewacla, Goldston-Badin complex, and Uwharrie-Badin complex soils. Chewacla soils are poorly drained and frequently flooded soils, found along floodplains. Chewacla soils have map units that are hydric soils or have hydric soils as a major component. Goldston-Badin complex soils are shallow and well drained to excessively drained and are on uplands. Uwharrie-Badin complex soils are moderately deep and well drained and are on uplands. Goldston-Badin and Uwharrie-Badin Complex soils are not hydric soils. Water Bridge No. 37 crosses Big Mountain Creek approximately 16.1 kilometers (10 miles) downstream from its origin near Candor, North Carolina. Big Mountain Creek drains south into the Pee Dee River. Big Mountain Creek and subsequent receptor systems are part of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin (NCDNRCD 1993). Big'Mountain Creek is a Class WS-IV stream, indicating waters protected as water supplies which are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds. 7 No High Quality Waters (HQW), Anadromous Fish Spawning Areas, Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS I or WS II Waters occur within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of the project site. The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) report no dischargers within four miles upstream of the proposed crossing. The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long term trends in water quality at fixed monitoring sites by the sampling for benthic macroinvertebrates. Certain organisms are sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality. Good water quality is associated with high taxa richness (the number of different types of organisms) and the presence of many intolerant species. Water quality degradation gradually eliminates the more sensitive species and leads to a community structure quite different from that in an unstressed waterbody. BMAN information is not available for the immediate project area. Table 1 describes the stream characteristics of Big Mountain Creek observed in the vicinity of the proposed bridge replacement project. TABLE 1 Stream Characteristics and Ecological Classifications Characteristic Description Substrate Gravel, boulder Current Flow Moderate Channel Width 13.7 meters (45 feet) Water Depth 15 centimeters (0.5 feet) to 61 centimeters (2 feet) Water Color Clear Water Odor None Aquatic Vegetation Button bush Adjacent Vegetation River birch, sweetgum, white oak, red maple, longleaf pine Wetlands Palustrine Forested Jurisdictional Topics Wetlands Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States" as defined in Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 328.3, in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters and wetlands will be impacted by project construction. Approximately 0.02 hectares (0.06 acres) of Palustrine forested broad-leaved deciduous wetlands (see Cowardin et al. 1979) will be impacted (filled) by the construction of the recommended alternative. Field observations indicated that north of the existing bridge there exists 8 a narrow intermittently flooded wetland. In general, the creek banks are steep and well drained and wetland hydrology was not observed in other portions of the project. Wetland communities were identified using the criteria specified in the 1987 "US Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual". For an area to be considered a "wetland", the following three specifications must be met: 1) presence of hydric soils (low soil chroma values); 2) presence of hydrophytic vegetation; and 3) evidence of hydrology at or near the soil surface for a portion (5 percent or greater duration) of the growing season. Protected Species Federally Protected Species: Species with federal classifications of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) are protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (1978, 1979, 1982, and 1988 Amendments). Candidate species do not receive protection under the Act, but are mentioned due to -potential vulnerability. Table 2 lists the federally protected species for Richmond County as of March 28,1995. TABLE 2 Federally Protected Species for Richmond Count Common Name Scientific Name Status Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus E Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum E Rough-leaved loosestrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia E Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii E Brief descriptions of each species' characteristics, habitat requirements, and relationship to the proposed project are discussed below. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Status: E Family: Accipitridae Listed: 2/14/78 The bald eagle is primarily associated with coasts, rivers, and lakes; usually nesting near bodies of water where it feeds. Nests are usually constructed in living trees, but bald eagles will occasionally use a dead tree. The proximity of good perching trees may also be a factor in site selection. An otherwise suitable site may not be used if there is excessive human activity in the area. BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT 9 No suitable habitat exists along the bridge replacement alternative. Also, a review of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the subject project study area. It can be concluded that project construction will have no impact on the bald eagle. Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) Status: E Family: Picidae Listed: 10/13/70 This federally Endangered woodpecker is found in scattered locations throughout the southeast. The bird measures 18 to 20 centimeters long with a wing span ranging from 35 to 38 centimeters. The male has a small red spot on each side of the head. Both males and females show a black cap and stripe on the side of the neck. The throat is also black while the cheeks and under parts are white. Black and white horizontal stripes are visible on the back. Nesting habitat consists of open pine stands (minimum age 60 years) or mixed pine/hardwood stands, (50 percent or more pine). Longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) is most commonly used, but other species of southern pine are also acceptable. BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT No suitable habitat exists along the bridge replacement alternative. Also, a review of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the subject project study area. It can be concluded that project construction will have no impact on the Red-cockaded woodpecker. Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrun:) Status: E Family: Acipenseridae Listed: 3/11/67 The shortnose sturgeon is a small species of sturgeon (seldom exceeding 1 meter (3 feet) in length) with a wide mouth and a short snout. The short nose sturgeon occurs in the lower section of larger rivers and in coastal marine habitats. In North Carolina, this species has only been reported from Brunswick (Cape Fear Basin) and Anson (Yadkin-Pee Dee Basin) Counties. BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT No suitable habitat exists along the bridge replacement alternative. The dam at Blewett Falls Lake on the Pee-Dee River inhibits upstream migration of the shortnose sturgeon to the study area. Also, a review of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the subject project study area. It can be concluded that construction of this project will not impact this species. 10 Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia) Status: E Family: Primulaceae Listed: 6/12/87 Rough-leaved loosestrife is a perennial herb that grows slender stems from a rhizome and reaches heights of 3 to 6 decimeters. Whorls of 3 to 4 leaves encircle the stem at intervals beneath the showy yellow flowers. Flowering occurs from mid-May through June, with fruits present from July through October. Habitat occurs in the ecotones or edges between longleaf pine uplands and pond pine pocosins (areas of dense shrub and vine growth) usually on a wet, peaty, poorly drained soil, on moist to seasonally saturated sands and on shallow organic soils overlaying sand. BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT No suitable habitat exists along the bridge replacement alternative. Also, a review of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the subject project study area. It can be concluded that construction of this project will not impact this species. Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) Status: E Family: Anacardiacene Listed: 9/28/89 Michaux's sumac was known historically from the inner coastal plain and lower piedmont of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. Thirty-five populations have been reported in North Carolina. This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. It is dependent on some sort of disturbance to maintain the openness of its habitat. It grows only in open habitat where it can get full sunlight and it does not compete well with other species such as Japanese honeysuckle. Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub that grows 0.2 to 1.0 meters.in height. The narrowly winged or wingless rachis supports 9 to 13 sessile, oblong to oblong-lanceolate leaflets that are each 4 to 9 centimeters long, 2 to 5 centimeters wide, acute and acuminate. It bears small flowers in a terminal, erect, dense cluster. The flowers are greenish to white in color. Fruits, which develop from August to September on female plants, are a red densely short-pubescent drupe, 5 to 6 millimeters across. BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT The disturbed roadside margins along the project offers suitable habitat for this species. Plant by plant surveys along the roadsides were conducted on October 18, 1994. No plants were observed. Also, a review of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the subject project study area. It can be concluded that construction of this project will not impact this species. 11 Federal Candidate Species: There are eight C2 federal candidate species listed for Richmond County. The North Carolina status of these species is listed in Table 3. TABLE 3 Federal Candidate Species for Richmond Coun Common Name Scientific Name Suitable NC Habitat Status Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis Yes SC Northern pine snake Pituophis ni. melanoleucus Yes SC Georgia leadplant Amorpha georgiana georgiona Yes E Sandhills milk-vetch Asiragalus michauxii Yes C White-wicky Kabnia cuneata No E-SC Conferva pondweed Polmnogeton conjervoides No C Pickering's morning-glory Stylisma p. var. pickeringii Yes E Smooth bog-dwhodel Tofieldia Qlabra No C NC Status: SC, E, SR, and C denote Special Concern, Endangered, Significantly Rare, Candidate, respectively. Candidate 2 (C2) species are defined as taxa for which there is some evidence of vulnerability, but for which there is not enough data to warrant a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered, or Proposed Threatened at this time. These species are mentioned here for information purposes, should they become federally protected in the future. Specific surveys for any of these species were not conducted, nor were these species observed during the site visit. State Listed Species: Plant or animal species which are on the state list as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202. 12 et seq.). North Carolina Natural Heritage Program records indicate no known populations of the state listed species occurring within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of the project site. Impacts Impacts on plant communities are reflective of the relative abundance of each system present in the study area. It should be noted that estimated impacts were derived using the entire proposed right-of- way. Project construction often does not require the entire right-of-way and therefore actual impacts may be less. Table 4 summarizes potential plant community impacts which could result from the proposed bridge replacement. 12 TABLE 4 Impacts to Plant Communities for Alternative I in Hectares (Acres Plant Communities Permanent Impact Temporary Impact Mixed Hardwood Forest 0.14 (0.36) 0.16 (0.40) Agricultural 0.03 (0.07) 0.13 (0.32) Urban/Disturbed 0.05 0.13 0.09 0.22 TOTAL 0.22 (0.56) 0.38 (0.94) Note: Permanent Impacts are based on a 24-meter (80-foot) corridor of the alignment. Temporary Impacts are based on an 18-meter (60-foot) corridor of the alignment. Impacts to plant communities as a result of bridge replacements for Alternative 1 are restricted to narrow strips adjacent to the existing bridges and roadway segments. Bridge and approach improvements occur primarily within disturbed right-of-way limits, agricultural, and hardwood forest edges. The loss of hardwood forest habitat is likely to reduce the number of plant species which serve as shelter, nesting and foraging habitat for numerous species of wildlife. The proposed action will result in loss or displacement of known terrestrial plant or animal habitat. Habitat affected by the proposed action include Urban/Disturbed and Hardwood Forested areas. The Urban/Disturbed area is utilized by opportunistic plant species such as greenbrier and Japanese honeysuckle and mobile species such as rodents, lizards and snakes that can recover quickly from construction impacts. The hardwood forest areas bordering Big Mountain Creek will receive disturbances next to the existing bridge area. Big Mountain Creek should continue to provide adequate habitat areas for mammals, reptiles and birds. The North Carolina Department of Transportation will utilize the best management practices for the proposed action to limit affects on the aquatic ecosystem. The disturbance of the creek bed and sedimentation from the banks could affect aquatic life (fish, mollusks, and benthic invertebrates) both at the project site as well as down stream reaches. Short term impacts to water quality can be anticipated from construction-related activities, which may increase sedimentation and turbidity. Impacts will be minimized by the use of best management practices, including implementation of stringent erosion and sedimentation control measures during construction. Long term impacts to water resources are not expected as a result of proposed improvements. The new bridge will maintain the present flow to protect stream integrity. Increased runoff from roadway surfaces will be partially mitigated by providing for vegetated road shoulders and limited use of ditching where ever possible. Projects authorized under Nationwide Permits usually do not require compensatory mitigation according to the 1989 Memorandum Agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency and the,Department of the Army. However, utilization of best management practices (BMP's) will be utilized in an effort to minimize impacts. 13 Permit Coordination In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.O.E. 1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States". Since the project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion, it is likely that this project will be subject to the nationwide Permit Provisions of 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23. This permit authorizes any activities, work and discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole or in part, by another federal agency and that the activity is "categorically excluded" from environmental documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment. However, final permit decisions are left to the discretionary authority of the United States Army Corps of Engineers. A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, will also be required. This certificate is issued for any activity which may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal permit is required. Compensatory mitigation is not required under a Nationwide permit. Erosion and sedimentation control measures will be strictly enforced during construction activities to minimize unnecessary impacts to stream and wetland ecosystems. Best Management Practices will also be implemented. Fill material from the temporary detour within the floodplain will be removed and the area restored, to the extent reasonably possible, to promote regeneration of the pre-construction conditions. VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 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 lack of substantial environmental consequences. The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural environment with the use of the current North Carolina Department of Transportation standards and specifications. The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No change in land use is expected to result from the construction of the project. No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-Way acquisition will be limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative. 14 No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area. The proposed project will not require right-of-way acquisition or easements from any land protected under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at Title 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that if a federally funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a property listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an opportunity to comment. The project is also subject to compliance with Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended. To comply with those requirements, the North Carolina Department of Transportation provided documentation on the subject project for submittal to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office. Correspondence with the State Historic Preservation Officer (see Appendix) indicates that no National Register-listed or eligible properties are located within the Area of Potential Effect (APE), depicted in Figure 2. Since there are no properties either listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places within the APE, no further compliance with Section 106, with respect to architectural resources, is required. In response to a scoping letter from the North Carolina Department of Transportation, the Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, in a memorandum dated December 19, 1994 (see Appendix), recommended that "no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project." Therefore, no archaeological work was conducted for the project. This project has been coordinated with the United States Soil Conservation Service. The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to consider the potential impact to prime farmland of all land acquisition and construction projects. With the exception of the construction of a temporary detour, all work will. be done within the existing right-of-way. Therefore, the project will not involve the direct conversion of prime, unique, or important farmland acreage. The project is located in Richmond County, which has been determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Parts 51 is not applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effect on the air quality of this attainment area. This project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, the impact on noise levels and air quality will not be substantial. Noise levels could increase during construction but will be 15 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 State Implementation Plans for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for noise analysis of Title 23 CFR Part 772 and for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act. An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area. Richmond County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 6. The amount of floodplain area to be affected is not substantial. There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in alignment will result in a crossing of about the same magnitude. All reasonable measures will be taken to minimize any possible harm. The project will not increase the upstream limits of the 100-year floodplain. In the vicinity of the project, there are no structures located within the limits of the 100-year floodplain. On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental effects will result from implementation of the project. 16 T .?11322 1.5 ? ' 131 D Concord / Ch. A 1150 Bi f tJ W 100 1150 / ¦ 1005 , ¦ 1339 • 1146 • 1307 \ N 10? t?O J O 1319 1318 1317 O \ A ` S±? 6 Sharon \Ch. is 1310 1314ti 1310 •4.,9 .J ? ? ..... 'fix 1317 F1314 Q' 1310 73 ? w •p .0 145• •? I \ 131 1338 . ^;b? 1314 I I ¦ 1 I 6 miles 1 miles 2 1 .. ^¦ \? ELLERBE ?:?: SIDE VIEW EAST APPROACH LOOKING WEST WEST APPROACH LOOKING EAST FIGURE 3 U- 0 E- Z U1 F u] z No x ? cn v? v Q? 3 > U 3: Z ZO ?E c - 0<? U o M o en cn 0- a UOZz, ?yNz? o 79 0 t 0Pa?t17 z aM o co J' ??r• z . rt > 4r, r.. J J Z Z _O p U U uj CO ui Cn • S ? U Z S p C-) w :. v UJ F O F ?} 1 C/) OQ p d Vol `. Co a 0 O o . X W C. %.o o M OR Q 4 Q J U J N _ U cc } a a H H =3 0 7 > d J J ^ D C O X C`7 W O O 00 p M ? Q a 0- 4) 4) s 3 v 7 CO (4), ? O -C Cl) l` d O ' co :3 J d F- d II 11 11 N N Y J a F- w L. O H Q H ? ? a d ? O w Q a q ? -? Q Z Z U ZaOUw O ?? ?•c c ? a q M x °' O 7a x o za O ?oaaa 0, o o ? zt-caam U z N s .7 wN Y L ?- U ? a M cv CG H z 0 z O a H o U E" U W o Q O N }, O M ?r z C) o '- 0\o° o c "" U u u u V) > - v 00 00 Q 0\ (7, C) U .--i C'4 z 0 H U w C7 w .- ,.- nvz 4 F .£-t -20 DEC 2 2 1994 North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division of Arc Histo F" Betty Ray McCain, Secretary William S. Price, December 19, 1994 MEMORANDUM TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager Planning and Environmental Branch Division of Highways Department of Transportation FROM: David Brook ? L, Deputy State Histot7c'Preservation Officer SUBJECT: Group VII Bridge Replacement Projects (fifteen bridges), Multicounty, CH 95-E-4220-0305 We have received information concerning the above project from the State Clearinghouse. We have reviewed the list of fifteen bridges planned for replacement. With the exception of B-2830, Greene County on NC 123 over Contentnea Creek on which we commented at a "meeting of the minds" in 1994, we have no record of having seen these proposed projects. Given our lack of staff in the Survey and Planning Branch to review the potential impacts of these replacements on historic buildings, we are unable to respond to your request for comments at this time. We suggest you direct your consultants, MA Engineering, to make an appointment with Renee Gledhill-Earley to check our maps and files or have her review aerial photographs or maps of the project areas. Our comments with regard to archaeological resources are as follows: Bridge 23 on NC 123 over Contentnea Creek, B-2830, Greene County, ER 94- 8699 There are no recorded archaeological sites within the immediate project vicinity, although the area south of the existing bridge contains a very high probability for the presence of prehistoric resources. It is likely that we will recommend an archaeological survey for this project, but we are unable to complete our review without project details and location. Please forward them as soon as they are available. 109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 Q3R H. F. Vick December 19, 1994, Page 2 Bridge 109 on SR 1734 over New Hope Creek, B-2852, Orange County Archaeological site 31 OR438 * * is likely to be affected by the proposed bridge replacement project. This historic period mill dam is located across New Hope Church north of SR 1734. We recommend that the project area be surveyed and site 31 OR438 * * be tested and evaluated for its National Register eligibility if it is to be affected by the project. Bridge 2 on SR 1003 over Pig Basket Creek, B-2850, Nash County Bridge 14 on SR 1609 over Fishing Creek, B-2828, Granville County Bridge 13 on SR 1530 over Haw River, B-2802, Alamance County Bridge 289 on SR 1152 over Swift Creek, B-2871, Wake County Bridge 2 on SR 1529 over Haw River, B-2801, Alamance County There are no recorded archaeological sites located in the project vicinity. However, we are unable to assess the project's potential effects upon as yet unrecorded resources without a project location. As soon as a location and detailed project information (including new right-of-way, approach work, detour structures) is available, please forward it to us so we may complete our review. Bridge 37 on NC 73 over Big Mountain Creek, B-1336, Richmond County Bridge 15 on SR 1100 over Barnards Creek, B-2595, New Hanover County Bridge 27 on NC 904 over Scipped Swamp, B-2807, Brunswick County Bridge 37 on US 13 over South River, B-2819, Cumberland and Sampson Counties Bridge 82 on SR 1456 over Deep River, B-2849, Moore County Bridge 45 on NC 211 over Raft Swamp, B-2860, Robeson County Bridge 61 on SR 1935 over Ten Mile Swamp, B-2863, Robeson County Bridge 32 on SR 1433 and SR 131.0 over Lumber River, B-2866, Robeson and' Scotland Counties There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project. 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. DB:slw cc: State Clearinghouse B. Church T. Padgett North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Betty Ray McCain, Secretary February 21, 1995 MEMORANDUM TO: Barbara Church Planning and Environmental Branch Division of Highways Department of Transportation FROM: Renee Gledhill-EarleyP?' Environmental Revie) o?tor Historic Preservation Office SUBJECT: Concurrence Forms Division of Archives and History William S. Price, Jr., Director Attached are the fully executed concurrence forms for properties not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places for the following projects: Alamance County, B-2801; Federal Aid BRZ-1529(2), Replace Bridge No. 2 on SR 1529 over Prong of Haw River Alamance County, B-2802, Federal Aid BRSTP-1530(1), Replace Bridge No. 13 on SR 1530 over Haw River Brunswick County, B-2807, Federal Aid BRSTP-904(2), Replace Bridge No. 27 on NC 904 over Scippio Swamp Cumberland County, B-2819, Federal Aid BRSTP-13(3), Replace Bridge No. 37 on US 13 over South River Granville County, B-2828, Federal Aid BRZ-1609(1), Replace Bridge No. 14 on SR 1609 over Fishing Creek Greene County, B-2830, Federal Aid BRSTP-123(1), Replace Bridge No. 123 on NC 123 over Contentnea Creek More County, B-2849, Federal Aid, BRZ-1456(3), Replace Bridge No. 82 on SR 1456 over Deep River Nash County, B-2850, Federal Aid BRZ-1003(13), Replace Bridge No. 2 on SR 1003 over Pig Basket Creek New Hanover County, B-2595, Federal Aid BRSTP-1100(5Replace Bridge No. 15 on SR 1 100 over Barnards Creek 109 East Jooes Street • Raleigh, No-Lh Carolina 27601-2,907 Barbara Church February 21, 1995, Page 2 Orange County, B-2852, Federal Aid BRSTP-1734(2), Replace Bridge No. 109 on SR 1734 over New Hope Creek Richmond County, B-1336, Federal Aid BRSTP-6491(2), Replace Bridge No. 37 on NC 73 over Big Mountain Creek Robeson County, B-2860, Federal Aid BRSTP-21 1 (1), Replace Bridge No. 45 on NC 211 over Raft Swamp Robeson County, B-2863, Federal Aid BRZ-1935(1), Replace Bridge No. 61 on SR 1935 over Ten Mile Swamp Scotland County, B-2866, Federal Aid BRSTP-1433(1), Replace Bridge No.. 32 on SR 1433 over Lumber River Wake County, B-2871, Federal Aid BRSTP-1152(2), Replace Bride No. 289 on SR 1152 over Swift Creek Please distribute to the appropriate engineer and to Federal Highway Administration. We have kept copies for our files. RGE:slw Attachments TIP Federal Aid n tKf2VP - (Wil (9 County ?..t"momo CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR TEE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES Brief Project Description V-efLACf, 1>,PPGC tlo. V7 otJ n &1r , ovER. ElIa MaAOTAt?J C -'EEV- On JAaMARRY V? r t°Il S , representatives of the ? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Federal Highway Administration (FHwA) North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Other reviewed the subject project at A scoping meeting Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation Other All parties present agreed there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect. ? there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect. ? there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect, but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties. identified as rriA.)o N.. 37 are considered not eligib e for the National Register and no further evaluation of thern-? necessary. ? there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect. S igned: a/.2/ys- CD wA, r the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency ate Representative, SHPO Date State Historic Preservation Officer If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this for-rn and the attached list will be included.