20010961 Ver 1_Complete File_20010530

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
October 30, 1997
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Ms. Cyndi Bell
DWQ - DENR
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
RECEIVED
aci, 199,7
ENVIRONNENT& SCIENCES
GARLAND B. GARRETT J R.
SECRETARY
Review of Scoping Sheets for the following projects:
Project T.I.P. County Bridge No. State Route Planning Engineer
B-3226 Robeson No. 34 SR 1001 Jeff Ingh cO,?;,
B-3229 Robeson No. 132 SR 2455 Jeff Ingham,/
r
B-3374 Stokes No. 61 SR 1973 Dennis Pipkin?
B-3379 Wayne No. 16 US 117 Alt. Bill Goodwin
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets and location maps for the
subject projects. The purpose of this information and the related review procedure is to have an
early "meeting of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the projects. Scoping meetings for these projects are scheduled for
December 3, 1997 in the Planning and Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470).
These scoping meetings will be held back to back beginning at 9:00 A. M. in the order shown
above. These meetings typically last 10 to 15 minutes per project, so all attendees should plan to
arrive at the beginning of the 9:00 A. M. session as applicable. You may provide us with your
comments at the meeting, mail them to us prior to the meeting, or e-mail them to
[e-mail] prior to the meeting.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If there are any
questions about the meetings or the scoping sheets, please call the indicated Project Planning
Engineer, at 733-3141.
HFV/bg
Attachments

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GovFRNOR
May 23, 2001
Washington Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000
ATTENTION: Mr. Mike Bell
Dear Sir:
C
I 1

LYNDo TIPPETT
SF('RETARY
SUBJECT: Revision to the permit application for the proposed replacement of Bridge
No. 16 over Brooks Swamp on US I I7A in Wayne County. Federal Aid
Project No. BRSTP-117A(1), State Project No. 8.1331401,
TIP No. B-3379. N35°14.583' W78° 03.274'
The original permit application dated May 11, 2001 for this project contained several
errors. The information below provides corrections to those errors.
The existing bridge will be replaced by a new bridge 75.0 ft in length in approximately
the same location. The project length is approximately 740.0 ft. Traffic will be detoured offsite
along existing roads during construction.
Impacts to Waters of the U.S. provided in the original application were correct. If you
have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Chris Rivenbark at
[phone].
Sincerely,
1
William Gilmore, P.E., Branch Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548 WEBSITE: WWWDORDOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH, NC
-.9001
WDG/mcr
cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Garland Pardue, USFWS
Mrs. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Design
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. D.R. Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Tim Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Byron Moore, P.E., Roadside Environmental
Mr. Jim Trogdon , P.E., Division 4 Engineer
Ms. Robin Young, PD & EA

?eM%wwATEo
f
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL. F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
May 23, 2001
Washington Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000
ATTENTION: Mr. Mike Bell
Dear Sir:
LYNDo Tipn' " f
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Revision to the permit application for the proposed replacement of Bridge
No. 16 over Brooks Swamp on US I I7A in Wayne County. Federal Aid
Project No. BRSTP-117A(1), State Project No. 8.1331401,
TIP No. B-3379. N35°14.583' W78° 03.274'
The original permit application dated May 11, 2001 for this project contained several
errors. The information below provides corrections to those errors.
The existing bridge will be replaced by a new bridge 75.0 ft in length in approximately
the same location. The project length is approximately 740.0 ft. Traffic will be detoured offsite
along existing roads during construction.
Impacts to Waters of the U.S. provided in the original application were correct. If you
have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Chris Rivenbark at
[phone].
Sincerely,
/, C& z -/"
-=4
William Gilmore, P.E., Branch Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548 WEBSITE: WWW.DOH. DOT. STATE. NC. US RALEIGH, NC
-.990001
WDG/mcr
cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Garland Pardue, USFWS
Mrs. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Design
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. D.R. Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Tim Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Byron Moore, P.E., Roadside Environmental
Mr. Jim Trogdon , P.E., Division 4 Engineer
Ms. Robin Young, PD & EA

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Bill Ross, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1548
IN U
W, A
1 0 •
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
July 30, 2001
DWQ No. 010961
Wayne County
Re: Wayne County, Replacement of Bridge No. 16 over Brooks Swamp on US 117A,
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-I17A(1), State Project No. 8.1331401; TIP B-3379.
Brooks Swamp [27-54-5-2; WS IV NSW]
APPROVAL of Neuse Buffer Rules AUTHORIZATION CERTIFICATE with ADDITIONAL
CONDITIONS
Dear Mr. Gilmore,
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, to impact 0.02 acres of protected riparian
buffers (0.015 acres in Zone 1 and 0.005 acres in Zone 2) for the purpose of replacing Bridge Number 16 over `
Brooks Swamp on US 117A. The project shall be constructed according to your application dated May 11,
2001, and any conditions listed below. This approval shall act as your Authorization Certificate as required
within the Neuse River Riparian Area Protection Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0233). In addition, you should get
any other required federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not
limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application dated May 11,
2001. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. If
the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this authorization and approval letter and is
thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. For this approval to be valid, you must follow the
conditions listed below.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this authorization, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You
must act within 60 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. 276 1 1-7447. This authorization and its conditions are final and
binding unless you ask for a hearing.
Non-Discharge Branch Wetlands/401 Unit 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27669-1621
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post consumer paper
.- r.
Page 2 of 2
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under the "No Practical Alternatives"
determination required in 15A NCAC 2B .0233(8). If you have any questions, please contact John Hennessy
at 919-733-5694.
incerely,
Stevens
Cc: Eric Alsmeyer, US Army Corps of Engineers a gh Field Office
Deborah Sawyer, DWQ Washington Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
C:\ncdot\B-3379\wgc\buffer authorization.doc

..? 010961
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL. F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
May 11, 2001
Washington Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000
ATTENTION: Mr. Mike Bell
Dear Sir:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Proposed replacement of Bridge No. 16 over Brooks Swamp on US I I7A
in Wayne County. Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-117A(1), State Project
No. 8.1331401, TIP No. B-3379. N35°14.583' W78° 03.274'
Attached for your information is a copy 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 "Categorical Exclusion"
in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we propose to proceed under a Nationwide
Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Federal Register: March 9, 2000 (Volume 65, Number
47, Pages 12817-12899, by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and
appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed during construction of the project.
The existing bridge will be replaced by a new bridge 150.0 ft in length in approximately
the same location. Project length is approximately 1,480.0 ft. Traffic will be detoured offsite
along NC 210 and NC 11 during construction.
Jurisdictional Surface Waters. One perennial stream in the Neuse River Basin, Brooks
Swamp [DWQ Index No. 27-54-5-2, (8/3/92)] is crossed by NC 53. This stream carries a Best
Usage Classification of WS-IV NSW. Class WS-IV waters are protected as water supplies which
are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds and are suitable for all Class C uses.
Class C refers to waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548 WEBSITE: WWWDOH.DOT.STATE. NC.US RALEIGH, NC

secondary recreation, and agriculture.
The bridge has an asphalt overlay surface on a reinforced concrete deck, with steel I-
beams. The bridge has timber caps on timber piles for the bents and for the end bents. There is
potential for components of the deck to be dropped into Waters of the United States during
construction. The resulting temporary fill associated with the concrete deck and timber caps is
approximately 27.0 yd'. All temporary fill material will be removed from the creek as soon as
possible as part of the bridge removal process.
Jurisdictional Wetlands. Jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted due to project
construction. The project will result in 0.06 ac of permanent fill in wetlands and 0.16 ac of
mechanized clearing. One row of driven piles, will be used to support the new bridge. Permit
drawings depicting this proposed work are attached.
Neuse Riparian Buffers. Impacts to Neuse Riparian Buffers associated with this project
total 0.02 ac (0.015 ac Zone 1, 0.005 Zone 2). No new stormwater ditches or sedimentation
control devices are proposed within Neuse Riparian Buffers. Bridge deck scuppers will not be
used for this project therefore there will be no direct discharge into Brooks Swamp. Deck
drainage will be directed outside the buffer zone.
Threatened And Endangered Species. The red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
is listed as Endangered for Wayne County. A Biological Conclusion of No Effect has been
reached for this species.
Cultural Resources. Bridge No. 16 though more than 50 years old, was found not eligible
for the National Register and no other evaluation was required. There are no known
archaeological sites within the proposed project area and SHPO State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) recommended no archaeological investigations be conducted (October 15, 1998).
It is anticipated that these activities will be authorized via a NWP 23 (Categorical
Exclusion). By copy of this application, we are also requesting a 401 General Water Quality
Certification as well as an Authorization Certificate for Neuse Riparian Buffer impacts from the
NC Division of Water Quality.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Chris
Rivenbark at [phone].
Sincerely,
Af C4,
L4044-- /07
William Gilmore, P.E., Branch Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
WDG/mcr

cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Garland Pardue, USFWS
Mrs. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Design
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. D.R. Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Tim Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Byron Moore, P.E., Roadside Environmental
Mr. Jim Trogdon , P.E., Division 4 Engineer
Ms. Robin Young, PD & EA

?f
J
9
PROJECT
NOT TO SCALE
NEUSE RIVER BUFFER
VICINITY
MAP
ai
t
8
R
N. CD. 0. T.
DIVISION OF HIGHT1,7A YS
WAYNE COUNTY
PROPOSED REPIACE.`ViEA7
BRG. NO. 16
ALONG US 117A
OVER BROOKS SW:-LMP
STATE PROJECT# 3.1331101 (B-3379)
SfiF1sT I OF 'i
It
r
JI I I
SCALE
I" = 1500'
NE-USE RAVER BUFFER
LOCATION

lac: C.D. 0. T.
DIVISION OF HIGHWA YS
WAYNE CO UN7T
PROPOSED REPLACE,?MNT
MAP BRG. NO. 16
ALONG US 117 A
O f R BROOKS S I V IWP
STA1'E PROV CT#Y_1331401 (B-33"7)
SILEET 1 OF 7
r?1
of ?
II ( '"? j CO)
31
w?x? , I I
y?i O S
z ?I
31-
r m 11
PuN °` ? ? e ? U
z
A
t z
Z
z ?
a
wz
I W w ? c7
4 z
Nc G e?? o I* I I o
NAB I I
J
F I ?
II ?'' I s
L?

12 Z
O
~?
d
rn
03 wm
w a.
Z F
Z=
o
4
U Vd
?
LL
LL
W M O
O p

a. j w
3 w
w
0
o
U N
Z

CL
U) °

LZ (D

N
C?

CD
2
(/),
O
LL

o °

c
t v
? U
o °
rnd?8i

Q 'u5U E

a

? E c
?°-
3 ?-
W
C1 ° o

N N o
m

O °

l0 : d
Q LL Z
c
O t0

H ?,

Q

H ? > ? o

W
a p
z w O o

Z LL
o.

N
C ? O
p O
C)
- ?p U

7
N

M
r ?
C
2
(/), S S
t
r
r t
O
r

U Z
O
F- O w
H

L
cn
w
Y w
Y 3 =
I- `_
:rr'T`??1 ?r oz

z N
a I I ` I N
O
!?

1-
o
J
?- d
o
J ?N
?- 4
N 0 ?
^'1 Q
U f-a3:
z tin
L

X w
a
Z N
a x Q
`'' _ '?I WNY
U Z) o O
m
h

z O
L, a V) I
O CL LLI
a H
W O ^i
; Ti a O O
a p
CO lr F,?

Fq cq

W
I
I
N

Q
?jri\!
? Q a
O
~

? x ``I I J
-? "`?~ Y?'1
O W
W O
> a
3
NNP? g ?y I 0 M?? 0
a
-V I 1 ?!'

Iw y H O
a:

?
OF ? UJ z o
CO .J II
LLJ JQ
IZ z i- U
iw

X
W W FFl

- y- Ld

o
L.Li

p IZ 8 '? N N
Q
LL

Z

1

F
w
??
00+N I ?:
--
--
--
- a. n.
s d
N I
Q W W
d 0
W

la
,4 N i N

1..L JINN \
F-
HMV LL.LLLL Sx

W LL

W .4

W
co N
.
I -L,-~1-
M
? 3
I !
I `
W ?O?MOOO

0 GS. C Er
M ?,,
o+oo°oo
rv', T .
V7?7 W I Q
O'I N 3
\ + 0
`tao>o0

Q Q i? ?O?
QO N z
h-
a
1 ?L W
VVV IYYYI IL z
0 Q N
vl
h O J
J J 1 ?I O
N z J
N

T W LL.
a0
71'`x'
W

i
l
a w
1

z
W N
2 ZU
w oa
U N
J
a
w

W Z U
a
LL o
LL N

m
C14
LO 04
O
w 8
LL
lL N
w U O O
O -
Co N
_z

p o
z O O
g Lit V
Oz Q
W N

Q w?
z L
C J
^
N N N
V) O
O O
O
H U
a
Q CL a
a

W

0 LO
W Q N o a
U- Z a
LL p -
M w
m a
o s
0 0
Z U
Q
O
N
O
U)
_
z O +
O ? `D

O O
?
U ? o
v

ww
n m
CL
} cn
o
w
Z)
0

U)
.- _
N
O
z J
? Q
N H

H

NEUSE RIVER BUFFER ZONE IMPACT MINIMIZATIONS B-3379
1. THERE WILL NOT BE BRIDGE DECK SCUPPERS. THEREFORE NO DIRECT
DISCHARGE INTO BROOKS SWAMP.
2. DECK DRAINAGE IS TO BE DIRECTED AWAY FROM THE BUFFER ZONE
TO THE TWO 2GI AT STA.13+93 -L- LEFT AND RIGHT.
THEY WILL OUTLET OUTSIDE THE BUFFER ZONE AS SHEET FLOW.
03-15-01
SKe T I OF
010961 ?4
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No.: 13-3379
State Project No.: 8.1331401 f. i
Federal-Aid Project No.: BRSTP-I 17AM
A. Project Description:
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 16 on US 117A over Brooks Swamp in Wayne
County. The bridge will be replaced with a double barreled reinforced concrete box
culvert. Each barrel of the culvert will be 12 feet by 7 feet. The approach roadway will
have a 24-foot travelway and 4 foot paved shoulders for a total pavement width of 32
feet. The total shoulder width will be at least 8 feet wide including the paved portion.
Shoulder widths will be increased to at least 11 feet where guardrail is warranted. Traffic
will be detoured along existing roads during construction.
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 16 has a sufficiency rating of 33.0 out of 100. The bridge is currently
posted at 17 tons for single vehicles and at 20 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers. For
these reasons Bridge No. 29 needs to be replaced.
C: Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following Type II improvements which apply to the project:
Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking weaving,
turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing pavement
(3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes, including
safety treatments
g. Providing driveways pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights

C. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/ or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing hazards
and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of grade
separation replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting ( no red lead paint), scour repair,
fender systems, and minor structural improvements
® Replacing a bridge (structure and/ or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of right-
of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse impacts.
Approvals for changes in access control.
Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction is
not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near a street with adequate
capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and ancillary
facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are required and there is
not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of passenger
shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements ) when located in
a commercial area or other high activity center in which there is adequate street
capacity for projected bus traffic.
3
D
1 1. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such constriction is
not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no significant noise
impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land acquisition
loans under section 3 (b) of the UNIT Act. Hardship and protective buying will be
permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited number of parcels. These types
of land acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in
alignment for planned construction projects, which may be required in the NEPA
process. No project development on such land may proceed until the NEPA
process has been completed.
Special Project Information
Environmental Commitments:
High Quality Waters Soil and Erosion Control Measures for Protection of Sensitive
Watersheds should be implemented on this project to protect Brooks Swamp, a water
body classified as WS-4 NSW by the Division of Water Quality.
Bridge Demolition:
NCDOT built Bridge No. 16 in 1921. The bridge has an asphalt overlay surface
on a reinforced concrete deck, with steel I-beams. The bridge has timber caps on timber
piles for the bents and for the end bents. The bridge is 42 feet long and 34 feet wide.
There is the potential for parts of both spans of the bridge deck to be dropped into Brooks
Swamp at the project site during removal of this bridge. The resulting temporary fill into
waters of the US will amount to no more than 27 cubic yards of material. All temporary
fill material will be removed from the creek as soon as possible as part of the bridge
removal process.
Estimated Costs:
Construction
Right of Way
Total
Estimated Traffic:
Current
Year 2020
$ 350,000
$ 25,000
$ 375,000
6200 VPD
8800 VPD
3
r?
Proposed Typical Roadway Section:
The approach roadway will have a 24-foot travelway and 4 foot paved shoulders
for a total pavement width of 32 feet. The total shoulder width will be at least 8 feet wide
including the paved portion. Shoulder widths will be increased to at least 1 1 feet where
guardrail is warranted.
Design Speed:
60 mph
Functional Classification:
US 117A is classified as a Rural Major Collector Route in the Statewide
Functional Classification system.
Division Office Comments:
The Division Engineer supports the chosen alternate and proposed method for
detouring traffic during construction.
E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II actions.
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any unique or ? X
important natural resource? -
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally listed
X
F-1
endangered or threatened species may occur?
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? x
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of permanent
and/or temporary wetland taking less than one-third (1/3) acre

and have all practicable measures to avoid and minimize ?
x
takings been evaluated?

(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands ? F7 X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely impacted

by proposed construction activities? ?
X
4
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding Water X
Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW) ? -
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States in any
of the designated mountain trout counties? ? X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage tanks
(UST's) or hazardous materials sites?

X
71
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the project
significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any "Area of ? X
Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act resources? F-1 X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required? X
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway? X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? X
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned growth or ? X
land use for the area?
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or business? C X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effect on any minority or
low-income population? X
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the F1
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control? X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/or land
use of any adjacent property? X
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local F-1
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? X
5
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan and/or
Transportation Improvement Program (and is, therefore, in X
conformance with the.Clean Air Act of 1990)?
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic volumes? El X
F
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing X
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? 17
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge be
replaced at its existing location (along the existing facility) and
will all construction proposed in association with the bridge X ?
replacement project be contained on the existing facility?
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? E X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws ?
relating to the environmental aspects of the action? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on properties eligible for or ? X
listed on the National Register of Historic Places?
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains which are ? X
important to history or pre-history ?
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges , ?
historic sites or historic bridges, as defined in Section 4(f) of the X
U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966)?
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as defined ? X
by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1966,
as amended?
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent to a
river designated as a component of or proposed for inclusion in ?
the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers?
Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
None.
X
6
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.: .13-3379
State Project No.: 8.1331401
Federal-Aid Project No.: BRSTP-117AM
Project Description:
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 16 on US 117A over Brooks Swamp in Wayne
County. The bridge will be replaced with a double barreled reinforced concrete box
culvert. Each barrel of the culvert will be 12 feet by 7 feet. The approach roadway will
have a 24-foot travelway and 4 foot paved shoulders for a total pavement width of 32
feet. The total shoulder width will be at least 8 feet wide including the paved portion.
Shoulder widths will be increased to at least 1 I feet where guardrail is warranted. Traffic
will be detoured along existing roads during construction.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
X TYPE II (A)
TYPE II (B)
Approved:
Date Assistant Manager,
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
7 8-9 9 W Q y H e ??' ??`
Date Project Planning Unit Head
q-1 iq b) h?rL_?? I
Date Project Planning Engineer
For Type II (B) projects only:
Not Required
Date Division Administrator,
Federal Highway Administration
7
N

? Studied Detour Route 10
???}=. • ?CGoldsboro /

dMCWT"c4 North Carolina Department of
4t
Transportation

`?i
7 Division of Highways
Plannin
& Environmental Branch
A
?OF TPA g
Wayne County
Replac e Bridge No. 16 on US 117 Alt.
Over Brooks Swamp
B-3379
Figure One

CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE :` ATIONAL REGISTER OF. HISTORIC PLACES
Brie: Prcjcc: Dcsc ^eticn
On i 15 Iqq , rcpresc:ICacivcs of chc
Norte Carolina Dcpartmcnt of Transportaticn (NICDO T )
.?FCdCral Higmwav Adminiscrlion (FH%%
worth Carolina Statc Historic Prescrvacicn OFicC (SrP0)
Ochcr
rcviCv.-C-4 :hc suoicc[ pralcct ac
/a scoptnc :nCC::nc
? RISCOCIC CiCal(C"11C"l rC501+'CC::S ;.'•IlC[C`_r:Ull rC'•Il:'•?' SCSS??? -JllSllliC;:Cn
O(:...

?..... .. _r_ no CrccC.I:CS Jt..?. ... ?:..a r) VtL. '.?Ill.l.. .t:.. _. _ ._. .._ \. .. r._.... _. ....__..
TIC 7rocc:lics ICS TI
:11c:
CCnS:CCra::Cn G t ahi n t!IC -"C I= 5 - CC CC(C...._.
/ •?C?^ 'ICS 0' .., C: CS OIC (Ilse a[:._nC l .t;i:I:n iLC.JCCILC: S .-- C: CC:?....:.
on availaoic rc :Ctocr. c _=_. =rc=
rival :n:cr :-[: C.7:
Jl t7asC cn chC litts[C
CCn
`i iuat:cn oC :r:C...:S ?C CS i_
rcr a(:crlai Rc^stci ... n? .
;mac ^ . _..__a.
`acion_ 2 s: .. . :is:. r„ ^pcrics %%ainn :i: :roicc: s arCa cr _._ c:a.
-cr arc ?o -i

R_?res.::r c. NCDOT
?- -(cr or oc;:cr Fcacial Agcnc'•
F c.wA, lar chc Divisicn .•?CCitinisc -
Rcprc,cat ti':c. SMPO
Stncc His:orlc PresCr,aclon O..ic.

/c7/zo/?cp
•t _ Jlri' Jl :,a? :Uf:a _.:C .:C 11:.:?::C'? ?fal '•?l;I .` ..:?::.
f". 57Ar
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Govemor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
December 12, 1997
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge 16 on US 117 Alt. over Brooks Swamp,
Wayne County, 83379, Federal Aid Project
BRSTP-1 17A(1), State Project 8.1331401, ER
98-7862
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
kf' rey 1. Crow, Director
C E
?i
• r
1 6 1591 s
&
On December 3, 1997, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning
the above project. We reported our available information on historic architectural
and archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations.
NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, the only structure over fifty years old is
Bridge #16. We recommend that an architectural historian with NCDOT evaluate
the bridge for National Register eligibility and report the findings to us. No
additional historic architectural survey is recommended for this project.
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.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
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.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601•'_807 1
&
V
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
you have questions
Gledhill-Earley, environmental
11
May 3, 1999
MEMORANDUM TO: Wayne Elliot, P.E., Unit Head
Bridge Replacement Unit
FROM: Tanner Holland, Natural Systems Specialist
Natural Systems Unit
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Technical Report for the proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 16 on US 117A over
Brooks Swamp in Wayne County, Federal Aid Project
No. BRSTP-117A(1), State Project No. 8.1331401,
TIP No. B-3379
ATTENTION: Bill Goodwin, P.E., Project Planning Engineer
Bridge Replacement Unit
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) provides
inventories and descriptions of natural resources within the project area to assist
in preparation of a Categorical Exclusion. Estimations of impacts likely to occur
to these resources as a result of project construction are provided as well. If you
have any questions, please contact me at 733-1200.
cc:
Phil Harris, P.E., Unit Head, Natural Systems Unit
File: B-3379
Replacement of Bridge No. 16 on US 117A over Brooks Swamp in
Wayne County.
Natural Resources Technical Report
T.I.P. No. B-3379
State Project No. 8.1331401
F.A. Project No. BRSTP-117A(1)
North Carolina Department of Transportat:cn
Division of Highways
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Natural Systems Unit
Tanner Holland, Natural Systems Specialist
April 30, 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................ 1
1.2 PURPOSE .................................................................:............................................. 1
1.3 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 1
1.4 QUALIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR ............................................................2
1.5 TERMINOLOGY .........................................................................................................2
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................2
2.1 SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY ...................................................... ...................................2
2.2 WATER RESOURCES .............................................................. ...................................3
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics ........................... ...................................3
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification ............................................. ...................................3
2.2.3 Water Quality ................................................................ ................................... 4
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ........................................................... ...................................5
3.1 BIOTIC COMMUNITIES ............................................................. ...................................5
3.1.1 Maintained Roadside .................................................... ...................................5
3.1.2 Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp ............................. ................................... 6
3.2 WILDLIFE ............................................................................. ...................................6
3.2.1 Terrestrial Species ...................................................... ................................... 6
3.2.2 Aquatic Species ............................................................ ................................... 6
3.3 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS ...................................... ...................................7
3.3.1 Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities ........... ...................................7
3.3.2 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources .................... ................................... 7
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS .....................................................................................8
4.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES ..............................................................................8
4. 1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ............................................ 9
4.1.1 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ................................................................... 9
4.1.2 Permits .......................................................................................................... 9
4.1.3 Mitigation .....................................................................................................10
4.1.4 Avoidance .....................................................................................................11
4.2 RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES ............................................................................ 12
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species ........................................................................12
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species ................................13
5.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................15
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. SOILS OCCURRING IN THE PROJECT STUDY AREA ................................................... 3
TABLE 2. ESTIMATED IMPACTS TO TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES ............................................. 7
TABLE 3. FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN FOR WAYNE COUNTY ........................................ 14
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in
preparation of a Categorical Exclusion.
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project (see Figure 1) calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 16
on US 117A over Brooks Swamp in Wayne County. A reinforced ccncrete culvert wi!l
be used to cross the swamp. The proposed right-cf-way is 18.2 m 2-0.0 ft). Project
length is approximately 274.3 m (900.0 ft). Traffic',vill either be detcured during
construction using other existing local roads or tra is will be maintained onsite on a
temporary detour structure located east of the existing bridge during construction.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this document is to describe and inventory the natural resources
identified within the project vicinity and estimate potential impacts to these resources.
Recommendations are made for measures which will minimize resource impacts.
These descriptions and estimates are relevant only in the context of existing
design concepts. If preliminary design parameters change, additional field
investigation may be necessary.
1.3 Methodology
Prior to the site visit, published resource information pertainirg to the project
vicinity was gathered and reviewed. Information sources include; U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps (Mount Olive), NRCS Soil Survey (Wayne County)
NCDOT aerial photographs of project study area (1:1200), Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) list of protected species and N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP)
database of uncommon and protected species and unique habitats.
A field survey for the project was conducted on March 5, 1999 by NCDOT
Natural Systems Specialist Chris Rivenbark. Plant communities were identified and
recorded. Wildlife was identified using a number of observation techniques, including
habitat evaluation, active searching and recording identifying signs of wildlife (sounds.
tracks and burrows).
1
I ?
?,omp _ l ?I C) 1
?? _ -- _ ??
DUFLEY
- 6 POr. . 199
1 19 G % ?? `'?+'cZ 1937
1
Airport t
C MOUNT
OLJVE I ^
t
POP. 4,569 \ I 1 / ?' > a 5 3 s'. ;-
111 ?
\ -
1117
1935 5
193'
11 ao,
cd; - 1147 North Carolina Department of

t
Transportation
Division of Highways
?4 0* Planning & Environmental Branch
Wavne County
Replace Bridge No. 16 on US 117 Alt
Over Brooks Swamp
B-3379
Fi pure One

4W
1.4 Qualifications of Principal Investigator
Investigator: Chris Rivenbark
Education: BS Natural Resources-Ecosystem Assessment
. North Carolina State University
Experience: NCDOT Environmental Biologist, 1997-current
Expertise: Natural resources investigations; wetland delineation;
protected species surveys; NEPA documentation.
1.5 Terminology
For the purposes of this document, the following terms are used concerning the
limits of natural resources investigated. Project study area denotes the area bounded
by the proposed right-of-way limits. Project vicinity describes an area extending 0.8
km (0.5 mi) on all sides of the project study area. Project region is equivalent to an
area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map [163.3 sq km (61.8 sq mi)],
with the project as the center point.
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Water and soil resources, which occur in the study area, are discussed below.
Soils and the availability of water directly influence composition and distribution of flora
and fauna in any biotic community.
Wayne County is located in the Coastal Plain physiographic province. The
elevation at the project study area ranges from approximately 33.5 m-38.1 m (110.0-
125.0 ft) above mean sea level. The land surface of the project study area is smooth
with sloping breaks occurring along the flood plain of Brooks Swamp.
2.1 Soils and Topography
Three soil phases occur within project boundaries (see Table 1). The Johnston
soil phase is present throughout most of the project. All soils located within the project
area have a seasonal high water table at the surface.
2
Table 1. Soils occurring in the project study area.
Map Unit Mapping Unit Permeability Slope (%) Drainage
Svmbol
Js Johnston
To Torhunta
Bb Bibb
Slowly
permeable
Slowly
permeable
Moderately
Permeable
0-2 Very
Poorly
Drained
0-2 Verly
Poorly
Drained
0-2 Poorly
Drained
2.2 Water Resources
Hydric
Class
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be
impacted by the project. Water resource information encompasses physical aspects of
the resource, its relationship to major water systems, Best Usage Standards and water
quality of the resources. Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed,
as are means to minimize those impacts.
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Water resources within the project area are located in subbasin 03-04-12 of the
Neuse River basin. The Neuse River basin encompasses 6192 square miles in 19
counties and is the third largest river basin in North Carolina. The Neuse River basin
originates northwest of Durham in the northern Piedmont region of North Carolina and
then flows southeasterly for over 200 miles.
One surface water is located within the project study area. The Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) has assigned index numbers for streams and tributaries in North
Carolina. One perennial stream in the Neuse River Basin, Brooks Swamp [DWQ Index
No. 27-54-5-2, (8/3/92)] is crossed by Bridge No. 16. The average width of Brooks
Swamp is 8.5 m (28.0 ft) with an average depth of 1.2 m (4.0 ft.). The substrate
material consisted of sand and silt.
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the DWQ. The
Best Usage Classification of the project area surface water is WS-IV NSW. Class WS-
IV refers to waters protected as water supplies which are generally in moderately to
highly developed watersheds and is suitable for all Class C uses. Class C refers to
waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation, and agriculture. The supplemental classification NSW refers to waters
3

.11
subject to growths of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation requiring limitations on
nutrient inputs, at the discretion of the Director of DWQ.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped
watersheds, or WS-II: predominately undeveloped watersheds) nor Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of project study area.
2.2.3 Water Quality
The DWQ has initiated a whole basin approach to water quality management for
the 17 river basins within the state. To accomplish this goal the DWQ collects
biological, chemical and physical data that can be used in basinwide assessment and
planning. All basins are reassessed every five years. Prior to the implementation of the
basinwide approach to water quality management, the Benthic Macroinverteb rate
Ambient Network (managed by the DEM) assessed water quality by sampling for
benthic macroinverteb rate organisms at fixed monitoring sites throughout the state.
Biological monitoring is now performed as part of the basinwide assessment program.
Many benthic macroinvertebrates have stages in their life cycle that can last from
six months to a year, therefore, the adverse effects of a toxic spill will not be overcome
until the next generation. Different taxa of macro invertebrates have different tolerances
to pollution, thereby, long term changes in water quality conditions can be identified by
population shifts from pollution sensitive to pollution tolerant organisms (and vice
versa). Overall, the species present, the population diversity and the biomass are
reflections of long term water quality conditions. There are no biological sampling
stations located on project area surface waters, or within 5 km (3 mi) of the project
corridor.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted
through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. Any
discharger is required to register for a permit. There are no permitted dischargers
within the project vicinity.
Nonpoint source discharge refers to runoff that enters surface waters through
stormwater. Agricultural activities may serve as a source for various forms of nonpoint
source pollutants. Land clearing and plowing disturb soils to a degree where they are
susceptible to erosion, which can lead to sedimentation in streams. Sediment is the
most widespread cause of nonpoint source pollution in North Carolina. Pesticides,
chemical fertilizers, and land application of animal wastes can be transported via runoff
to receiving streams and potentially elevate concentrations of toxic compounds and
nutrients. Animal wastes can be source of bacterial contamination and elevate
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). Drainage ditches on poorly drained soils
4
enhances the transportation of stormwater into surface waters (Division of '
Environmental Management, 1993). `
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial communities. This section
describes those communities encountered in the study area as well as the relationships
between fauna and flora within these communities. Composition and distribution of
biotic communities throughout the project area are reflective of topography, hydrologic
influences and past and present land uses in the study area. Descriptions of the
terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications and
follow descriptions presented by Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible.
Dominant flora and fauna observed, or likely to occur, in each community are described
and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for
each animal and plant species described. Plant taxonomy generally follows Radford, et
al. (1968). Animal taxonomy follows Martof, et al. (1980), Potter, et al. (1980), and
Webster, et al. (1.985). Subsequent references to the same organism will include the
common name only. Fauna observed during the site visit are denoted with an asterisk
('`). Spoor evidence equates to observation of the species. Published range
distributions and habitat analysis are used in estimating fauna expected to be present
within the project area.
3.1 Biotic Communities
Two biotic communities are identified in the project study area: maintained
roadside and coastal plain small stream swamp (blackwater subtype). Community
boundaries within the study area are generally well defined without a significant
transition zone between them.
3.1.1 Maintained Roadside
The roadside community consists of several disturbed/maintained habitats
exhibiting similar characteristics. The disturbed/maintained habitat in this description
consists of roadside road shoulders. Road shoulders are irregularly maintained,
receiving only periodic mowing and herbicide applications.
Road shoulders act as buffers between the roadway and the surrounding
communities by filtering storm water run-off and reducing run-off velocities. The
maintained roadside community consists of fescue (Festuca sp.), lespedeza
(Lespedeza sp.), and plantain (Plantago sp.). In the areas which receive lower levels of
maintenance, more diverse communities can develop. This community was populated
5
Y
by dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), Carolina geranium (Geranium carolinianum),
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japanica), Japanese knotweed (Polygcnum
cuspidatum), and vetch (Vicia sp.).
3.1.2 Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
The coastal plain small stream swamp (blackwater subtype) community included
herb and vine species such as southern lady fern (Athyrium aspleniodes), royal fern
(Osmunda regalis), southern blue flag (Iris virginica), common cattail (Typha latifolia),
and Japanese honeysuckle. Shrubs found in this area included Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense) and elderberry (Sambucus canadensis). Trees found in this area
included American elm (Ulmus americana), Carolina ash (Fraxinus caroliniana), river
birch (Betula nigra), red maple (Acer rubrum), bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), and
swamp blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora).
3.2 Wildlife
Wildlife found in these communities are limited and consists primarily of
wide-ranging, adaptable species which are well suited to coexistence with human
development. Mammals common to disturbed edge areas, such as eastern cottontail
rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus), and gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) may inhabit forested fringes. The
most common reptiles found in such habitats are eastern box turtle (Terrapene
caroling), predators such as black racer (Coluber constrictor), and eastern garter snake
(Thamnophis sirtalis).
3.2.1 Terrestrial Species
Birds likely to frequent such habitats include common crow (Corvus
brachyrhnynchos), prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria citrea), and barred owl (Strix
varia). Barred owls are common, permanent residents of this community type. This owl
preys on rodents, insects, frogs and small birds. The prothonotary warbler are
insectivorous avian species with thin straight bills.
Other birds potentially found here include yellow-throated warbler and Carolina
wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus). American robin, European starling (Sturnus vulgaris)
and rusty blackbird often flock and roost in this habitat after breeding season during
their migration.
3.2.2 Aquatic Species
Coastal Plain Swamps provide habitat for a variety of organisms adapted to
moist environments, such as the southern dusky salamander (Desmognathus
6
auriculatus), dwarf salamander (Eurycea quadridigitata), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer),
and pickerel frog (Rana oalustris). The southern dusky salamander and dwarf
salamander live beneath leaf litter or rotten logs.
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the proposed project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. This section quantifies and qualifies potential impacts to the
natural communities within the project study area in terms of the area impacted and the
organisms affected.
3.3.1 Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project construction due to the
clearing and paving of portions of the project study area, and thus the loss of
community area. Calculated quantitative impacts reflect the relative abundance of each
community present in the study area (Table 2). Estimated impacts are derived based
on the project length of 274.3 m (900.0 ft.) and the entire right-of-way of 18.3 m (60.0
ft). The entire right-of-way will probably not be impacted; therefore actual impacts to the
communities may be considerably less.
Table 2. Fstimntpd imnn CtC to tcrrcc+rinl ---- ...;11....
Community type ^Estimated impacts ha(ac)
Maintained roadside 0.09 (0.24)
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp 0.40 (1.0)
Total 0.49(l.24)
Flora and fauna occurring in these communities are generally common
throughout North Carolina because of their adaptability to wide ranging environmental
factors. Moreover, a similar roadside shoulder community will be re-established after
construction. Animals temporarily displaced by construction activities should repopulate
areas suitable for the species following project completion. As a result, it is unlikely that
existing species will be displaced significantly from the project study area following
construction. However, to minimize the temporary effects of project construction, all
cleared areas along the roadways should be revegetated promptly after project
completion to minimize erosion and the loss of wildlife habitat.
3.3.2 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Estimated impacts to Brooks Swamp will be approximately 0.01 ha (0.03 ac).
Impacts are calculated by using the width of the stream channel 8.5 m (28.0 ft) and the
entire right-of-way 18.3 m (60.0 ft). The entire right-of-way will probably not be
impacted, therefore actual impacts to the stream may be considerably less.
7
Aquatic communities are sensitive to any changes in the environment. Any
action that affects water quality can have an adverse impact on aquatic organisms.
Although most of the disturbance caused by project construction will be temporary.
some environmental impacts caused by the proposed prcject will `ve long term or
irreversible. Installation or modification of instream structures, such as repiacemerz or
extension of culverts, can permanently affect many physical stream parameters.
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface waters:
• Increased silt loading and sedimentation from erosion of disturted soils.
• Changes in light incidence, water clarity and water temperature due to increased
sediment load and riparian vegetation removal.
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface or ground
water drainage patterns.
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from
construction equipment and other vehicles. .
Precautions must be taken to minimize these and other impacts to water
resources. in the study area. NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMP) for the
Protection of Surface Waters must be strictly enforced throughout the construction
stage of the project.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to
two important issues-waters of the United States, and rare and protected species.
4.1 Waters of the United States
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) promulgated the definition of
"waters of the United States" under 33 CFR §328.3(a). Waters of the United States
include most interstate and intrastate surface waters, tributaries, and wetlands. Areas
that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions are considered
"wetlands" under 33 CFR §328.3(b). Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes,
bogs, and similar areas. Any action that proposes to place dredged or fill materials into
waters of the United states falls under the jurisdiction of the USACE, and must follow
the statutory provisions under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C.
1344).
8
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the 1987 "Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual". The three parameter approach is used where
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and prescribed rdrologic characteristics must all
be present for an area to be considered a wetland.
Only one jurisdictional wetland was observed within the project area. This
wetland is dominated by swamp blackgum with soft rush (Juncus effusus), elderberry
(Sambucus canadense), and red maple (Acer rubrum) growing along the fringe of the
fill slope adjacent to the bridge. Hydrologic indicators are saturated soils and
inundation. The estimated area of impact is approximately 0.40 ha (1.0 ac). Soils at
the wetland had a hue of 10YR, a value of 2, and a chroma of 1. The Cowardin
classification for this site is Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous (PFO1 C).
Only one jurisdictional surface water was present within the project area, Brooks
Swamp. The average width of Brooks Swamp is 8.5 m (28.0 ft) with an average depth
of 1.2 m (4.0 ft.). The substrate material consisted of sand and silt.
4.1.1 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Estimated impacts to the wetland and surface water was derived based on the
length of Bridge Number 16 [18.3 m (60.0 ft.)] and the entire width of the proposed
right-of-way [274.3 m (900.0 ft)]. The wetland impact has been estimated at 0.4 ha
(1.0 ac) and the surface water impact at 0.01 ha (0.03 ac). Usually, the entire right-of-
way will not be impacted, therefore actual impacts may be considerably less.
4.1.2 Permits
Clean Water Act §404 establishes a permit program to regulate the discharge of
dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States. The USACE, which
administers the permit program under CWA §404, established nationwide permits for
minor activities, specialized activities, and activities regulated by other authorities. A
nationwide permit (NWP) is a permit by rule. In other words, compliance with the NWP
rules satisfies the statutory provisions under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Forty
NWPs referenced by a number currently exist (Strand, 1997). Nationwide 23, entitled
Approved Categorical Exclusions, covers certain activities undertaken, assisted,
authorized, regulated, funded, or financed, in whole or in part, by another Federal
agency or department. Nationwide Permit 23 applies when another Federal agency or
department determines that their activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded
from an environmental impact statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). The activity, work, or discharge becomes categorically excluded when its
actions neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
9

environment. Also, the Office of the Chief of Engineers must receive notice of the
agency's or department's application for the categorical exclusion and concur with the
categorical exclusion determination (61 FR 65874, 65916; December 13, 1996).
Clean Water Act §401 authorizes states to determine whether activities permitted
by the federal government comply with state water quality standards. The DWQ may
require a Section 401 Water Quality Certification if a project fills or substantially
modifies waters or wetlands. North Carolina developed General Certifications (GCs)
that satisfy CWA §401 and correspond to the Corps of Engineers' NWPs (NCDENR,
DWQ, Water Quality Section, Wetlands Water Quality Certification; undated Internet
site). Water Quality Certification No. 3107, which corresponds to NWP 23, will
likely be required for this project's impacts to wetlands and waters.
A Nationwide Permit 23 CFR 330 Appendix A (B) (23) is likely to be
applicable for the crossing of Brooks Swamp. This permit authorizes construction
provided the following conditions are met:
• the width of the fill is limited to the minimum necessary for the actual crossing;
• the fill place in Waters of the United States is limited to a filled area of no more than
0.45.ha (1.0 ac);
• no more than a total of 45.7 m (150.0 linear ft) of the fill for the roadway can occur in
special aquatic sites, including wetlands;
• the crossing is culverted, bridged or otherwise designed to prevent the restriction of,
and to withstand, expected high flows and tidal flows and movement of aquatic
organisms, and;
• the crossing, including all attendant features, both temporary and permanent, is part
of a single and complete project for crossing of Waters of the United States.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ
prior to the issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or
licensed activity that may result in a discharge to Waters of the United States. Section
401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of
the construction or other land manipulation. The issuance of a 401 permit from the
DWQ is a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit.
4.1.3 Mitigation
The USACE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ),
a wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical,
biological and physical integrity of Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands.
Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts
10
(to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and
compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance.
minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
4.1.4 Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of
averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE,
in determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts,
such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and
practicable in terms of cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project
purposes.
4.1.5 Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to
reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these
steps will be required through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization
typically focuses on decreasing the.footprint of the proposed project through the
reduction of median widths, ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths. Other
practical mechanisms to minimize impacts to Waters of the United States crossed by
the proposed project include: strict enforcement of sedimentation control BMP's for the
protection of surface waters during the entire life of the project; reduction of clearing
and grubbing activity; reduction/elimination of direct discharge into streams; reduction of
runoff velocity; re-establishment of vegetation on exposed areas, judicious pesticide
and herbicide usage; minimization of "in-stream" activity; and litter/debris control.
4.1.6 Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to
Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not
be achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable
compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain
after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory
actions often include restoration, creation and enhancement of Water of the United
States, specifically wetlands. Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to
or contiguous to the discharge site.
Compensatory mitigation is required for those projects authorized under
Nationwide Permits that result in the fill or alteration of:
11
• Mcre than 0.45 ha (1.0 ac) of wetlands;
• And/or more than 45.7 m (150.0 linear ft) of streams.
If a temporary onsite detour is used, compensatory mitigation may be required
as a result of impacts to Brooks Swamp. Therefore, it is recommended that an offsite
detour be used during project construction.
Written approval of the final mitigation plan is required from the DWQ prior to the
issuance of a 401 Certification. Final permit/mitigation decisions rest with the COE and
DWQ.
Impacts to both jurisdictional surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands are
anticipated from the proposed project. As a result, construction activities will require
permits and certifications from various regulatory agencies in charge of protecting tf,e
water quality of public waters resources.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of
decline either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities.
Federal law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a species classified as
federally-protected, be subject to review by the Fish and Wildlife Service(FWS). Other
species may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened
(T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under
provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended.
As of January 15, 1999, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists one
federally protected species for Wayne County; the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides
borealis), which is listed as Endangered. The Endangered status means that a species
is in danger of extinction throughout all or significant portion of its range.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is entirely black
and white except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The back
of the RCW is black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of -his
12
woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek patch
surrounded by the black cap, nape, and trroat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf
pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain
at least 50 percent pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to
be appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in trees that are
greater than 60 years old and are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age.
The foraging range of the RCW is up to 200 hectares (500 acres). This acreage must
be contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that
are infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in
colonies from 3.6-30.3 m (12.0-100.0 ft) above the ground and average 9.1- 15.7 m
(30.0-50.0 ft) high. They can be identified by a large incrustation of running sap that
surrounds the tree. The RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch
approximately 38 days later.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat in the form of trees that are ?6D years old and are contiguous
with pine stands at least 30 years of age was not observed during the field survey. In
addition, a review of NCNHP database on 31 March 1999 indicated that there is no
known occurrence of the red-cockaded woodpecker within the project study area.
Therefore, this project will not affect this species.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are four Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed for Wayne County.
Federal Species of Concern are not afforded federal protection under the ESA and are
not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed
or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Federal Species of Concern are defined as
those species which may or may not be listed in the future.
These species were formally candidate species, or species under consideration
for listing for which there was insufficient information to support a listing of Endangered,
Threatened, Proposed Endangered and Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are
listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Significantly Rare (SR) or Special Concern
(SC) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) list of rare plant and
animal species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act
and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. However the
level of protection given to state listed species does not apply to NCDOT activities.
13
f1

Table 3 lists Federal Species of Concern and State listed species as of 15
January 1999, the species state status and the existence of suitable habitat for each
species in the study area. This species list is provided for information purposes as the
status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern for Wavne Countv.
Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Status
Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque's big-eared bat N SC*
Heterodon simus Southern hognose snake N SR*
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe Y T
Litsea aestivalis Pondspice Y C
Note:
'T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or one that
is designated as a threatened species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act).
"C" denotes Candidate (a species which is very rare in North Carolina, generally
with 1-20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by
habitat destruction. If these species are relocated in the state, or if present land
use trends continue, they are likely to be listed as Endangered or Threatened).
"SR" denotes Significantly Rare (a species which has not been listed by the N.C.
Wildlife Resources Commission as an Endangered, Threatened, or Special
Concern species, but which exists in the state in small numbers and has been
determined by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program to need monitoring).
"SC" denotes Special Concern (a species that requires monitoring but which may be
taken under regulations).
The listing for this county is an obscure record because the date and / or location
of observation is uncertain.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit. A review of
the N.C. Natural Heritage Program database of the rare species and unique habitats on
March 31, 1999 did not reveal any records of North Carolina rare and/or protected
species in or near the project study area.
14
5.0 REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. 1997. Natural Heritage Program list of the rare plant species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, NCDEHNR.
Fish, F.F. 1969. A Catalog of the Inland Fishing Waters of North Carolina. North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. The Graphic Press, Inc.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. and S.P, Hall. 1997. Natural Heritage Program list of the rare animal
species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North
Carolina Press.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1988. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) Water
Quality Review 1983-1986.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, The Division of
Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Wetlands Water Quality Certification;
undated Internet site; (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wetlandc html).
NRCS. 1974. Soil Survey of Wayne County, North Carolina. Natural Resources
Conservation Service, US Department of Agriculture.
Pennak, R.W. 1989. Fresh-water Invertebrates of the United States, 3rd ed. John Wiley
and Sons, Inc.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill,
The University of North Carolina Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of
the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill and London.
15

Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification cf the Nat,-7-al Cor- unities of
North Carolina. Third Approximation. Nortl- Carolina Natural Heritalge Prog,-am,
Division of Parks and Recreation. NCDEHNR.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species
and Federal Species of Concern in North Carolina
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals cf the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Chapel Hill and London.
16