19950244 Ver 1_Complete File_19950308

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
R
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
A'41r-*4 F
;rA
Nova
E:) FE r"**J FD*'
March 13, 1995
Northampton County
DEM Project # 95244
TIP# B-1299
COE # 199401887
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. Franklin Vick
NC DOT
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-5201
FILE co? y
Dear Mr. Vick:
You have our approval to place fill material in 0.14 acres of permanent fill and 0.67 acres of
temporary fill of wetlands or waters for the purpose of bridge replacement at Bridge # 74 on US 258,
as you described in your application dated 22 February 1995. After reviewing your application, we
have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 2735. This
certification allows you to use General Permit Number 031 when it.is issued by the Corps of
Engineers.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If
you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application.
For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the, attached certification. In
addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits before. you `go ahead with your
project.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory
hearing. You must act within 30 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing,
send a written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the
Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and
its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Environmental Management under Section 401
of the Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Sincerely,
P estop Howard, Jr. P
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Raleigh DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
95244.1tr
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
JD F trm J ?214y
MAR 8 1995
401
ISSUED
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkA NSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
February 22, 1995
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
6512 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 105
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer:
Subject: Northampton County, Bridge Replacement Projects, TIP Nos. B-1299,
B-1300,.and B-1307 over tributaries of the Roanoke River (USACOE
Action ID Nos. 199401885, 199401886, and 199401887)
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to replace
bridges Nos. 65, 72, and 74 on US-258 over tributaries of the Roanoke River
in Northampton County. Specifically, the project involves: 1) the demolition
of all three bridges; 2) the construction of temporary detours; 3) the
construction of a new bridge at location 65 and earthen structures with
reinforced concrete pipes at bridge locations 72 and 74; and 4) the removal
of the temporary detours.
Coordination efforts for this project began in March of last year when
the Categorical Exclusion (CE) was distributed. After review of the CE by
the Corps it was determined that the project as proposed would result in
greater than minimum impacts (April 11, 1994 COE letter); and therefore,
would require an individual permit. The wetland impacts anticipated for the
project as initially proposed would have resulted in 1.2 acres of permanent
and 4.1 acres of temporary impacts.
Since that time measures have been taken to avoid and minimize the loss
of wetlands to the greatest extent practicable. These efforts hav; resulted
in the reduction of wetland impacts to 0.37 acres of permanent and 1.47 acres
of temporary. The impacts associated with each project and totals are listed
in the table below.
9
February 22, 1995
Page 2
Project Perm. Impacts
1299 .058ha. (.14ac)
1300 .013ha. (.03ac)
1307 .080ha. (.20ac)
Totals .151ha. (.37ac)
Temp. Impacts
.270ha. (.67ac)
.210ha. (.52ac)
.113ha. (.28ac)
.593ha. (1.47ac)
Total
.327ha. (.81ac)
.223ha. (.55ac)
.193ha. (.48ac)
.743ha. (1.84ac)
In addition to wetland impacts several other issues have been raised by
the resource agencies. During a recent telephone conversation with Mr. Ken
Jolly of your department he once again discussed the items that needed to be
addressed prior to the COE issuing a permit for the project. Comments
concerning these issues are provided in the following paragraphs.
The first two issues pertain to anadromous fisheries impacts. It is the
COE's position that all construction should be outside the anadromous fish
spawning season (February 1 to June 30). The NCDOT Design Services Unit has
agreed that all construction can be conducted outside this timeframe.
Therefore, this is an acceptable permit condition.
Mr. Jolly requested that we contact Mr. Ron Sechler with the NMFS to
ensure that they are satisfied with the project as currently proposed.
During a telephone conversation with Mr. Sechler on Feb. 13, 1995 he stated
that the project was acceptable if: 1) all construction will be outside the
Feb. 1 to June 30 timeframe; and 2) that the NCDOT Hydraulics unit was
satisfied that flooding would not result from the temporary detours.
Mr. Sechler's second condition was also a concern of the Corps.
Specifically, Mr. Jolly questioned the size of the culvert pipe for the
detour (smaller) as compared to the drainage structures for the new proposed
crossings. Discussions with NCDOT Hydraulics Unit has revealed that the
detour drainage structures are designed to handle flows up to a five year
rain event. It is their opinion that a rain event greater than this is
unlikely to occur during the proposed period of construction (approximately
months). The structures for the new road crossings are designed for much
greater thresholds. In addition, the drainage structures for the new roads
have been oversized not only to handle high flows but to also allow for
wildlife passage.
Lastly, Mr. Jolly wanted to ensure that once the temporary detours were
removed that the area would be restored to pre-existing conditions and
replanted with hardwood seedlings similar to the surrounding habitat.
Discussions with the NCDOT Design Services Unit has revealed thatrthis
requirement would be part of their final plans and would be completed by the
NCDOT Roadside Environmental Unit once the project is completed by the
contractor. Therefore, this is also an acceptable permit condition.
February 22, 1995
Page 3
As a result of the above avoidance and minimization measures .
implemented, the NCDOT requests that the project be permitted under the COE
General Permit No. 31 instead of an individual. If you have any questions
regarding this information, please do not hesitate to call Scott P. Gottfried
at 919-733-3141.
Sincer94
Z/J
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Eric Galamb, DEHNR-DEM
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS, Beaufort
Mr. David Dell, USFWS
Mr. Abdul Rahmani, NCDOT-Hydraulics
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Ms. Michelle Fishburne, NCDOT-P&E

NOTIFICATION FORM
INFORMATION SHEET
Nationwide permits that require notification to the Corps of Engineers
Nationwide permits that require application for Section 401 certification
A. NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS DISTRICT ENGINEER. (REFER TO
ITEM B. BELOW FOR DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT APPLICATION RE-
QUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICALLY NOTE NWP 26 DIFFERENCE.)
Certain nationwide permits require notification to the Corps of Engineers before work can proceed. They are as follows:
NWP 5 (only for discharges of 10 to 25 cubic yards)
NWP 7
NWP 13 (only for stabilization activities in excess of 500 feet in length or greater than an average of one cubic yard
per running foot)
NWP 14 (only for fills in special aquatic sites, including wetlands, and must include a delineation of affected special
aquatic sites)
NWP 17
NWP 18 (required when discharge exceeds 10 cubic yards or the discharge is in a special aquatic site and must include
a delineation of the affected special aquatic site, including wetlands)
NWP 21 (must include a delineation of affected special aquatic sites, including wetlands)
NWP 26 (only for greater than 1 acre total impacts and must include a delineation of affected special aquatic sites,
including wetlands)
NWP 33 (must include a restoration plan of reasonable measures to avoid and minimize impacts to aquatic resources)
NWP 37
NWP 38 (must include a delineation of affected'special aquatic sites, including wetlands)
For activities that may be authorized by the above listed nationwide permits that require notification, the
applicant shall not begin work
a. Until notified that the work may proceed under the nationwide permit with any special conditions imposed by
the District Engineer, or
b. If notified that an individual permit may be required; or
c. Unless 30 days (calendar) have passed from the time a complete notification is received by the District Engineer
and no notice has been received from the District Engineer, and required state approvals have been obtained.
Required state approvals include: 1) a Section 401 water quality certification if authorization is requested for a
discharge of dredged or fill material, and 2) an approved coastal zone management consistency determination if
the activity will affect the coastal area.
Use of NWP 12 also requires notification to the District Engineer, but work may not begin until written
concurrence is received from the District Engineer. The time periods described above do not apply.
Furthermore, requirements to notify the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), as indicated below and on the
notification form, do not apply.
B. APPLICATION TO DEM FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT SECTION 401 CERTEIFICATION.
Certain nationwide permits require an application to DEM in order to obtain Section 401 water quality certification.
They are NWP 6, NWP 12, NWP 15, NWP 16, NWP 17, N %T 21, NWP 33, NWP 34, NWP 38, and NWP 40.
Certain nationwide permits were issued general certifications and require no application. They are NWP 3, NWP 4,
NWP 5, NWP 7, NWP 20, NWP 22, NWP 23 (requires notification to DEM), NWP 25, NWP 27, N'4vP 32, NWP 36,
and NWP 37.
The following nationwide permits were issued general certifications for only limited activities: NWP 13 (for projects
less than 500 feet in length), NWP 14 (for projects that impact waters only), NWP 18 (for projects with less than 10
cubic yards of fill in waters only), and NWP 26 (for projects with less than or equal to one-third acre fill of waters or
wetlands). Projects that do not meet these criteria require application for Section 401 water quality certifications.
r.
C. NOTIFICATION/APPLICATION PROCEDURES.
The attached form should be used to obtain approval from the. Corps of Engineers and/or the N.C. Division of
Environmental Management as specified above. The permittee should make sure that all necessary information is '
provided in order to avoid delays. One copy of the completed form is required by the Corps of Engineers and seven
copies are required by DEM. Plans and maps must be on 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper.
Endangered species requirement: For Corps of Engineers notifications only, applicants must notify the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service regarding the presence of endangered species that may
be affected by the proposed project.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
RALEIGH FIELD OFFICE HABITAT CONSERVATION DIVISION
P.O. Box 33726 Pivers Island _
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726 Beaufort, NC 28516
Telephone [phone] Telephone [phone]
Historic resources requirement: For Corps of Engineers notifications only, applicants must notify the State Historic
Preservation Office regarding the presence of historic properties that may be affected by the proposed project.
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
N.C. DIVISION OF ARCHIVES AND HISTORY
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone [phone]
Information obtained from these agencies should be forwarded to the Corps.
r

e.
ACTION ID: 199401887
DEM ID:
Nationwide Permit Requested (Provide Nationwide Permit #): General Permit # 31
JOINT FORM FOR
Nationwide permits that require notification to the Corps of Engineers
Nationwide permits that require application for Section 401 certification
WILMINGTON DISTRICT ENGINEER
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATM: CESAW-CO-E -
Telephone [phone]
WATER QUALITY PLANNING
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
ATTN: MR. JOHN DORNEY
Telephone [phone]
ONE (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION SHOULD BE SENT TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT.
PLEASE PRINT.
1. Owners Narne• North Carolina Department of Transportation, Planning & Environmental Branch
2. Owners Address: P 0 Box 25201: Raleigh NC 27611
3. Owners Phone Number (Home): --- "? (Work): [phone]
4. If Applicable: Agent's name or responsible corporate official, address, phone number.
H Franklin Vick P E Manager
5. Location of work (MUST ATTACH MAP). County: Northampton (B-1299)
Nearest Town or City: Rich Square
Specific Location (Includexoad numbers, landmarks, eic.): Bridge No. 74 on US 258 between the Roanoke
River and SR 1107
6. Name of Closest Stream/River. Bridgers Creek
7. River Basin: Roanoke
8. Is this project located in a watershed classified as Trout, SA, HQW, ORW, WS I, or WS II? YES [x] NO [ ]
9. Have any Section 404 permits been previously requested for use on this property? YES [x J NO [ J
If yes, explain. NWP 23 permit applied for and denied due to "greater than minimal imparts"
10. Estimated total number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, located on project site:
N/A
11. Number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, impacted by the proposed project:
Filled: 0.14 acre Permanent fill; 0.67 acre Temoorarv f;11
Drained:
Flooded:
Excavated:
TOW Impacted: 0.81 acre (permanent and tPmpnraty f

12. Description of proposed work (Attach PLANS-8 1/2" X 11" drawings only): _ Replacement of the existing
bridge at the same location with 2@72" (1800mm) diameter RCP. A 1@36" (800 mm) CSP will
be used at the detour •just upstream.
13. Purpose of proposed work: To continue to provide vehicular, access over. Bridgers Creek
14: State reasons why the applicant believes that this activity must be carried out in wetlands. Also, note measures
taken to minimize wetland impacts.
See enclosed cover letter
15. You are required to contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or National'Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) regarding the presence or any Federally listed or proposed for listing endangered or threatened species or critical
habitat in the permit area that may be affected by the proposed project Have you done so? YES [ ] NO [ j
RESPONSES FROM THE USFWS AND/OR NMFS SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
16. You are required to contact the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding the presence of historic
properties in the permit area which maybe affected by the proposed project? Have you do=so? YES[ ] NO[
]
RESPONSE FROM THE SHPO SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
17. Additional information required by DEM.,
A. Wetland delineation map showing all wetlands, streams, and lakes on the property. NJA
B. If available, representative photograph of wetlands to beimpacted by project. NJA
C. If delineation was performed by a consultant, include all data sheets relevant to the placement of the
delineation line. N/A
D. If a stormwater management plan is required for this project, attach copy. N/A
E. What island use of surrounding property? Forest and farmland
F. If applicable, what is proposed method of sewage disposal? N/A
Owner's Signature

Date

1

tin SOn t • (.._}
di, / n
R
t
at Iii?, LIDen
n + Crea
r s ftDeron
r '
Iq x e r N -. A 2 n«icnes.
S, to
Ourtn, S.. Momeeye
i SDVllie 1
Scale of Miles
0 5 10 20 30
0 10 `0 s0 40 4s
Scale of Kilometers
`v?+ \ `..
HAt
t
fy
f
r
o`
h?
Y
1TE ,NAP
SCALE
1 0 1 2 3 4 Mlt.E5
w _-
tilsnlle
Z Colerx
Mounl Goi
rl ASSewvllle Astllam
T I E
ADdwaayy
}? Mel
r??? Z Hr
VICIANTITY MAP
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY. '
32
W ux .J Jj 11?
(t`?..I?j I; ?
Zy Wl ' •'••• ..
- , Z?11 176
ur '
109
55
llo•, l"_ J a oar
l \ 'o
? \ \ _1 eE

i
• i.
N.C. DEPT. OF,'-TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY
8.1100901 C B-1299 )
Replacement of BR #74 on US-258
b!w the Roanoke River and SR 1107
< No. 4 Overflow Structure )
SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET / of -5 SEPT. 1994
? .• r -
YIRGINIA . Sourer
, _
11 RUri
• S«,.,
?"
J_:J
J
; R
.
?
1,
/1 odin
'1MutireesDn.
,? '+• MJpltt re '
11 t
{ + Wmlon•
J/ t
A.O.IAILLER. HEIRS
TAX MAP 4330.00-29-9
rol
PLAN VIEW
"_-
SE • AS 5110YH
.^2 -AS SNU 7„

t
t
- L- POOP I LE bEGINI GRADE
UG1N R1-5LIRF. STA. IQ}Q30-- 5TA. 10+
16 _ LISE EX15 R-M-t GRADE ELEV. I:5. m
-?
12 - --------~??-- --- - -_----`
10 _ I I I I I I
10+1000 t 02A + 04D +0!nt) D2fi 1O 100 y 1 +140
i
- D ET- PROFILE STA. 1czR.Ar c
`,TA0+ 5,06 9 of
lb - ELEN.15.264-m AjenAN05
15 _ ----------------------- \.? - _ _
------------------
14 -
13 _
12
II _
10
10+000 r 020 4 OAO +Or<Q + ono . 10+100 +12.0 r 10
GRAPHIC SCALES 4-
DENOTES Fill Belt W a. H. h1.
5... 0 10-
PLANS
S.- 0 10-
DENOTES FILL e_TEAfP.)
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL) IN WETLAW05 `
1- 0 2-

PROFILE (VERTICAL)
"
N.C. DEPT. Or' TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OI' HIGHWAYS
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY
8.1100901 C B-1299 )
Replacement of BR #74 on US-258
b/v the Roanoke River and SR 11,
( No. 4 Overflovr Structure )
SCALE AS SHOWN
SIIEET 9 of 5 SEPT. 199

Q A% f+
or Tn< Twe Ti Trc 14R.2Y.
Tne wsSTaEAU :Y.:-e-EC G>,o st7
++ er LCC.r::, PIP_ +:c-?7+e-s S.ara -e- STA 10.31 O'EN
Pc ^N57 ?? s5 Fe?rCF.O
£4+..rrrcT4v TO Fir
_
rra' C.Y.:-»:L 8-12J3
:L •1ib
_ rSe CL 1 r?;P r^^..J? 2300n REM-WE EX1STlVG E ICC-C.
?A.1- ECr iC1 GUA440Rrlt. & Asurmehr$ HENRY 2ENNETT0
by s 06 S19 PG 418
1;
+?
?
1
w2=m EA
s 1?J4zJ V0.'$ N° y
%"v
i1:
.
.
?•art::n::r,:r?:??:!'?::v'.::r.::,-: -
TDE? 7OE? 1 a- OE- TO --TOE-TOE-TOE- TOE-TDE-TOE- TOE- TOE- TOE- TDF- TOE- TO
x..•.. Ot T
N 5714.47• E
.
-also
> 34 Cot,
m
utL
T

i
-
1
ACC f n!P Pc? `?-r-" r.7

i ?6
` I
tF
30.1
"
0 152+m j
7C - .EG.fi NGT
}
-3174 r
4
r i r/ 1:101+ • r
-DET- PT 10.308.302 8K :r
`E---£ E---f----c g....--E-..- / FT 10 240242 -L- PT 10.299933 pN j
r PC 10-243.242 C£r.
TEMP
DRA
.
aT ass Fri a rrJ iSS- ZO7 PoSw x7.271 E
:2 A.S. MILLER
HEIRS EASJVV;
O
.
1d? p . ar 511.14! N p rr6'o.) (Ar1
4 >; G m?TE: TAX 31AP 4930.00'29 9
34fJn
R • r+ 5 A - R • ii SiriJ
SE •Or .°?.°.v ;:Or kECO«tuEr.LEL+ S£. • k5 Srr+q.r:f pLA N V i W
C
7 N
4G E
TO rL:i G
EE
.
. c
A0 AS
}?
m •,s s,,atn
ENO GF.AOL ENO RE.51JRP.
10+
- PROFILE STA
.
STA. 10+310
ELEV.) 5.552 m
4-0,0400/6
l.c o .
:c .
PROP051=D 2 ® 1800mm RC-,P U5E EXI5TING 'GRADE
2L
q_? 5TA, 10+167.5 EL. 10.70 Lt.
is qQ
5K
1
EW /V&
.
1 t ! ? I 1 - 1
I.¢a + I?iO + I $O IO±ZLY? +220 AZ40 +2p9 Z,?C) 10 -> 300
E0>6E OF END aAAOE
J,57' n1D5 ?-- STA. 10 +
?? ? ,.k tL.EV. (f.(o52m
PROP05ED I ® =800mmG5P
CL STA. 10 + 1-71.5 E L. 10. Q 5
q0° 5KEW
o.rt.
--_
-
r
-? - -
U - DET- PRDFI LE
i i 1 f I (
t 140 a- 16.0_,.._ + 1 e_0____J.0t2Q0 r?:.np
N.C. DEPT. OF,TRANSPORTATION
GRAPHIC SCALES DIVISION OF IfIGHWAYS
n• +t +s .f
5 0 1O/A
pE I:L NORTHAMPTON COUNTY
ee ww O. H.
PLANS 8.1100901 ( B-1299 )
5 0 Iom
DENOTES FILL CTI1MR) Replacement of BR #74 on US-258
PROFILE (HOP,12ONTAL) IN WETLANDS b1w the Roanoke River and SR 1107

a: < No. 4 Overflow Structure )
I 0 2M

SCALE AS SHOWN
OE?07>=S AE:RI'lAt?lEl3T
PROFILE / R 1CAL) ;ILL IN 1..IETLAQDS
SIiL-L-T '3 of 5 SEPT. 1994

30 20
-L
-f
EDG
W ET
- -k- -
I
20
)0 10
SECTION 8-B
i20 30
GRr:PHIC SG9LPS
I7a1Q?S r?2MfWOV'Ftu. IN W=-MAN Z6
('Ic"'TIC:-.LI ? .
2 0
DCNGTc5 FI LL&ENP.)
?'1OC1 LO N-1 AL) IIV LJGTLANI D$
Z 0 4M _

_ 2c
S7
•t 6
_ l2
- 8.
- -0
N.C. DEPT. OF?TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY
8.1100901 < B-1299 )
Replacement of BR #74 on US-258
blv the Roanoke River and SR 1101
< No. 4 Overflow Structure )
SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET V of 5 SEPT. 1994
0 1 1 ,
10 10 20 30
_ S E CT I O N ,A.-A
r
F
"1 t
r
ADDRESSES
1. Henry Bennett
Route 1, Box 104
Rich Square, NC 27869
2. A.B. Miller, Heirs
331 Henderson Road
Greenville, SC
SUMMARY

Ha cu.m
1. Permanent Fill in Wetlands............ 0.0580 1270
2. Temporary Fill in Wetlands............ 0.'2690--- 6180
3. Total Fill in Wetlands ................ 0.3270 7450
4. Permanent- Fill Below O.H.W............ - 355
5. Temporary Fill below O.H.W. .......... - 660
6. Total Fill bel ow O.H.W . .............. - 1015
N.C. DEPT. OF JRANSPORTATIOY
DIVISION Or III.C;I".:A':S
NORTHAM"I"TON COUNTY
1;.1193901 C
Replacement of 13R #74 on US-258
bl X the Roanoke Riycr and SR 13.07
C No. 4 Overflow Structure )
s
SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET -5 or .S SEPT. 1994
{ State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
EXEHNR
Division of Environmental Management
August 4, 1993
MEMORANDUM
To: Michelle Wagoner
NCDOT
Through: John Dorne4D
From: Eric Galamb /?
DEM Ly
Subject:. Preliminary CE for Bridge 74 on US 258
Northampton County
State Project DOT No. 8.1100901, TIP #13-1299
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental Management would not
object to a Categorical Exclusion for this project if after project completion, DOT
removed the temporary fill to the pre-existing elevation and replanted with pre-
construction tree species.
The document should present the costs for replacing the bridge with another bridge
rather than stating, "Extenuating circumstances and costs suggest another alternative."
What would the permanent wetland impacts be if another bridge was installed?
This project as proposed will permanently fill 0.2 acres of wetland.
b1299.com
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
?Rx 57'ATf °'
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JP, DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
June 30, 1993
MEMORANDUM T0: Mr. David Yow, NCWRC
Mr. David Dell, USFWS
Mr. Eric,Galamb, DEM
FROM: Ms. Michelle Wagoner
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Bridge Nos. 74, 65,and 72 over the Roanoke
River Overflow, Northampton County,
State Projects 8.1100901,
8,1101001, and 8.1100801
Ts.P Project Nos. B-1299, B-1300, and B-1307
Federal Aide Project Nos. BRSTP-258(2),
BRSTP-258(3), and BRSTP-258(1 )
SAM HUNT
SECRETARY
i
Please review the attached "Preliminary" Categorical
Exclusions for the subject bridge replacement projects.
Please note that these documents are preliminary and are not
for circulation.
We are requesting your review at this time because these
projects propose to replace the existing bridges with
culverts. Please provide us with your comments by July 20,
1993 so we may incorporate your comments into the final
document.
if Your have any questions, please call [phone].
Thank you for your assistance.
attachment
cc: Ms. Gail Grimes, P.E.
Mr. Tom Hepler, P.E.

?r

Northampton County, US 258
Bridge No. 74
over Roanoke River Overflow
State Project No. 8.1100901
Federal-Aid Project BRSTP-258(2)
I.D. No. B-1299
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
Date L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
Date Nicholas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA

Northampton County, US 258
Bridge No. 74
over Roanoke River Overflow
State Project No. 8.1100901
Federal-Aid Project BRSTP-258(2)
I.D. No. B-1299
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
June 1993
Documentation Prepared at William G. Daniel & Associates, P.A. by:
Thomas McCloskey
Project Engineer
Thomas R. Hepler, P.E.
Project Manager
For The North Carolina Department of Transportation:
L. Gail Grimes, P.E., Unit Head
Consulting Engineering Unit
E. Michelle Wagoner
Project Planning Engineer
Northampton County, US 258
Bridge No. 74
over Roanoke River Overflow
State Project No. 8.1100901
Federal-Aid Project BRSTP-258(2)
I.D. No. B-1299
Bridge No. 74 has been included in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The
location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated as a result
of this action. The project has been classified as a Federal "categorical exclusion."
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENT
All standard procedures and measures, including best management practices, will be
implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts. No special or unique
environmental commitments are necessary.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 74 should be replaced at the existing location with a reinforced concrete pipe as
shown by Alternate 1 in Figure 2.
Preliminary hydrographic studies indicate that a 84 inch reinforced concrete pipe should be
provided. The length of the culvert should be adequate to accommodate a 24-foot roadway
section with eight foot shoulders (four feet paved), the typical section that is to be provided
throughout the project limits. The grade of the existing roadway is to be retained.
Bridge construction should be "clustered" with nearby projects B-1300 and B-1307. Traffic
will be maintained on-site during the construction period by providing a temporary detour on
the east side of the existing structure.
The estimated cost of the project, based on current prices, is $625,000. The estimated cost of
the project, as shown in the 1993 - 1999 Transportation Improvement Program, is $500,000.
111. EXISTING CONDITIONS
US 258 is classified as a rural minor arterial route in the Statewide Functional Classification
System and is included as a part of the Federal Aid System. In the vicinity of the bridge,
US 258 has 32-foot pavement width (24-foot travelway and four foot paved shoulders). The
total shoulder width is eight feet. Vertical alignment is generally flat. Horizontal alignment is
in a tangent. The structure is situated 11 feet above the creek bed. The approaches are on
embankments ranging up to 10 feet above natural ground. Land use in the immediate vicinity
of the bridge is primarily woodland and farmland. Speed limit is 55 mph.
The current traffic volume of 2800 VPD is expected to increase to approximately 5500 VPD
by the year 2015. The projected volume includes 5 % truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and
7% dual-tired vehicles (DTT).
The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was constructed in 1929 and reconstructed in 1940. The
superstructure consists of a reinforced concrete deck on steel I-beams. The substructure is
composed of reinforced concrete caps on concrete piles.
Overall length is 121 feet and two inches. Clear roadway width is 26 feet. The posted weight
limit is 30 tons for single vehicles and legal limit for trucks with trailers.
Both an overhead power line and an underground fiber optic cable are located to the west of
the existing roadway. An underground telephone cable is located to the east of the existing
roadway.
Bridge No. 74 has a sufficiency rating of 46.5 compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
One accident was reported near Bridge No. 74 during the period from January 1, 1989 to
April 30, 1992.
Coordination with local school officials indicated no school bus trips over this bridge.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Several replacement alternatives were considered for Bridge No. 74. The "do-nothing"
alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not prudent due to the
traffic service provided by US 258. "Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to its
age and deteriorated condition. The recommended alternative for Bridge No. 74 is
replacement with an 84 inch reinforced concrete pipe approximately 70 feet in length. The
roadway approaches should be 32 feet of pavement (24 feet travelway and four foot paved
shoulders) with a total shoulder width of eight feet to match existing. Since the existing
alignment is tangent, the only prudent alignment alternative is replacement of the existing
structure on the present alignment. Traffic will be maintained on-site during the construction
period due to the high traffic volumes and the lack of a suitable detour route.
Two on-site detour alternatives were studied for the replacement of Bridge No 74. The
temporary detour for each alternates employ a 48 inch reinforced concrete pipe to carry the
drainage during construction. The approach roadway, for the detour, will consist of 20 feet of
travelway with six foot shoulders.
The detour alternates studied are as follows:
Alternate 1 (Recommended) consists of maintaining traffic on-site with a temporary detour
structure immediately east of the existing bridge (see Figure 2).
Alternate 2 consists of maintaining traffic on-site with a temporary detour structure
immediately west of the existing bridge.
V. ESTIMATED COST
Estimated costs of the proposed bridge replacement and two detour alternatives are as follows:
Structure
Permanent Roadway Approaches
Temporary Detour Structure
(Recommended)
Alt. 1 (East Detour) Alt. 2 (West Detour)
$43,500 $43,500
104,000 104,000
4,500
4,500
Temporary Detour 362,500 362,500
Structure Removal 20,500 20,500
Engineering & Contingencies 85,000 85,000
Right-of-Way, Utilities 5,000 15,000
Total $625,000 $635,000
Design Speed 60 mph 60 mph
VI. RECOM MENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 74 should be replaced at its existing location with a reinforced concrete pipe,
incorporating an on-site detour constructed to the east of the existing roadway, as shown by
Alternate 1 in Figure 2.
Widening to the east side was chosen due to the additional cost of relocating the fiber optic
cable located on the west side of the roadway.
According to a preliminary hydraulic study, a 84 inch reinforced concrete pipe will
accommodate the flow of the Roanoke River overflow at this point. The elevation of the new
crossing is expected to be approximately the same as the elevation to the existing bridge. The
structure dimensions will be assessed, as necessary, during final design.
The recommended improvement will include about 250 feet of improved roadway approaches.
The roadway approaches should be 32 feet of pavement (24 feet travelway and four foot paved
shoulders) with a total shoulder width of eight feet to match existing.
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
On December 17, 1992, Gary B. Blank and Richard R. Braham visited the B-1299 project site
to verify documented information and gather field data concerning conditions surrounding the
highway bridge on US 258 in Northampton County, NC. Project B-1299 proposes to replace
the bridge spanning an unnamed tributary to Bridgers Creek. Viewed from the north, the
existing bridge crosses the creek at N 59 degrees E, forming four quadrants.
The specific purpose of the investigation was to (1) search for threatened and/or endangered
plants, and evidence of habitation by listed animal species, (2) identify unique or prime-quality
communities, (3) describe the current vegetation and wildlife habitat, (4) delineate wetlands,
and (5) provide information to minimize adverse environmental effects of the proposed bridge
replacement Project B-1299. Project timing constraints necessitated an initial visit in late fall;
possible effects of conducting an evaluation at that time are discussed below.
Methods
The project area was a circular plot with a radius. of 300 feet, enclosing 6.5 acres. Plot center
was located in the middle of the current bridge. Plant communities within this plot were
delineated from aerial photographs and ground-checked on site. Forest community types
follow Schafale and Weakley (1990). Within each community, a list of member plant species
and general site description was developed on-site. Dominance (ft2/ac) of woody vegetation
layers was determined by the variable plot method (Husch et al. 1972). Dominance (percent
foliar cover) of herbaceous layers or communities was determined by ocular estimation, using
foliar cover guides developed by Belanger and Anderson (1989). For communities dominated
by trees, tree age, stem diameter at 4.5 feet above the ground (dbh), and total height were
measured for the largest trees. Age was determined from 2-mm increment borings; dbh and
height were measured using d-tape dendrometers and Abney-level hypsometers, respectively
(Wilson 1976). Ground distance was determined either by estimation on the ground or by
measurement on aerial photographs, but all other measurements and all species lists were
developed from on-site reconnaissance.
Evidence of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife was sought on-site through close observation of all
available signs. Habitats were characterized based on plant communities, and typical wildlife
communities associated with these habitats were determined. Special attention was given to
features indicative of habitat for species listed as threatened, endangered, or deserving special
concern.
Aquatic system features were noted on-site, and available documentation of water quality was
reviewed (NCDEM 1989, 1991, 1993). Wetland determinations followed procedures
described by the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Lab. 1987),
and wetland classification follows Cowardin et al. (1979).
Plant Communities
All land within the project area is naturally forested except for the mowed roadsides which
vary between 20 and 30 feet wide. The road and roadsides occupy 1.1 acres or 17 percent of
the project area. Roadsides are not dominated by natural processes, in this case contain no
threatened and endangered plants, and therefore are not considered further in this section.
Two forest communities occur: Cypress-Gum Swamp (Brownwater Subtype), a wetland
community, and Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods (Brownwater Subtype). These two
communities are similar to Baldcypress-Tupelo and Sweetgum-Willow Oak, respectively (Eyre
1980). Forests are common in Northampton County, where 211,383 acres--61 percent of the
land--are forested (Thompson 1990). Much forest acreage, 43 percent, contains sawtimber-
sized trees over 9-inches dbh. Current county forest statistics do not distinguish between
Cypress-Gum Swamp and Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods, so comparisons cannot be
made. But all bottomland communities occupy 41,635 acres--20 percent of all forest land in
Northampton County (Thompson 1990). Details of these communities, as they occur in the
project area, are provided below.
Cypress--Gum Swamp (Brownwater Subtype)(Wetlandl.
The Cypress-Gum Swamp, occupies 3.0 acres or 46 percent of the study area. It is all
wetland, and it occurs along the former creek bed which is now permanently flooded. Prior to
beaver dam construction, the creek probably flooded for three to six months in years with
average precipitation. In years with above average precipitation, the community may have
been flooded for four to eight months.
The upper canopy of the Cypress--Gum Swamp community contains baldcypress (Tax odium
distichum), water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica), swamp cottonwood (Populus heterophylla), and red
maple (Ater rubrum). Carolina ash (Fraxinus caroliniana) and American elm (Ulmus
americana) form a lower canopy. Along the shoreline, black willow (Salix nigra) occurs.
Portions of this community were logged within the last five years, and logging and beaver dam
construction have greatly affected canopy dominance. Small areas are not forested, partly
because they failed to regenerate after logging. Regeneration failure is probably the result of
nearly continuous flooding caused by the beaver dam. In addition, stumps covered with teeth
marks indicate that some trees, especially swamp cottonwood, were selectively felled by
beavers. Many fallen stems are partially or completely submerged. Other small areas were
not logged or contain trees less-desirable to beaver, and canopy dominance of these areas
varies between 80 and 120 ft2/acre. The largest trees are baldcypress, measuring 16-inches
dbh, 90 feet tall, and 55 years old.
The shrub layer contains Virginia-willow (Itea virginica) and hawthorn (Crataegus viridis).
Shrubs generally grow in drier microsites, especially on tree bases and fallen logs. Foliar
cover of the shrub layer averages five percent, except along the bank of the impoundment
where foliar cover averages 80 percent.
Foliar cover of the ground layer varies from 0 to 100 percent depending upon conditions. In
forested areas, ground cover is limited to tree bases, stumps, and fallen logs, where false-nettle
(Boehmeria cylindrica), lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus), seedbox (LudwiZia sp.), netted
em sp., possibly Q. i tea . In addition,
chainfern (Woodwardia areolata), and sedge (CAL
large populations of duckweeds ( mna sp. and Spirodela polyrrhiza) float on the water
surface. Non-forested areas contain plants typical of highly disturbed conditions, soft rush
(Juncus effusus), bulrush (Scirpus cyperinus), water plantain (Alisma subcordatum),
smartweed (Poly.gonum sp.), cut-grass ( ersia sp.), sedge (Carex sp.), seedbox (Ludwiaia
alternifolia), lizard's-tail (Saururus cemuus), flat-sedge (Cyperu s sp.), rose mallow (Hibiscus
moscheutos), and cat-tail (Tvvha latifolia). Adjacent the bridge, some of the deepest water
occurs, and rooted aquatic plants grow, especially parrot-feather (Myrioahyllum sp., probably
M. brasiliense) and frog's bit (Limnobium spongier).
Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods (Non-Wetland)
The Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods community occupies 2.4 acres or 37 percent of the
study area. None of this community is wetland, and it occurs upslope of the Cypress--Gum
Swamp community. This community floods only for very brief periods in years with much
above-average precipitation.
The upper canopy of the Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods contains sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and
river birch (Betula nigra). The lower canopy contains laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), red
maple (Acer rubrum), musclewood (C=inus caroliniana), winged elm (Ulmus alata), and
persimmon (Diospyros vir-giniana). Dominance of the overstory averages 140 ft2/acre,
consisting mostly of sweetgum and oaks. The tallest trees are sweetgums, measuring 85 feet
and 55 years old. Some of the trees, especially sweetgum, have been either felled or girdled
by beaver. The widest trees were sweetgums and laurel oak, both measuring about 17-inches
dbh.
The shrub/small tree layer contains possumhaw (Ilex decidua), waxmyrtle (Myrica cerifera),
American holly (ilex opaca), and strawberry bush (Euonymus americanus?. Foliar cover of
this layer is low, about five percent. The ground layer contains Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), greenbrier (Smilaxuca), poison-ivy (Toxicodendron radicans),
Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), rattlesnake fern (Botrychium virginianum), and
spike grass (Chasmanthium latifolium). Foliar cover of the ground layer averages about 25
percent, composed mostly of Japanese honeysuckle.
Wildlife (General)
On either side of the bridge, large pools created by beavers ( a or canadensis) have greatly
affected the habitat. The regenerated hardwood stand downstream provides habitat much
different from the mature stand upstream. While predation on young trees has occurred, the
effect is much less dramatic than in the mature stand. Extensive damage to standing trees has
occurred upstream of the bridge, resulting in eight snags and 15 downed logs per acre. Cavity
n
excavations are numerous, and prime habitat exists for herptile species. Raccoon (F1oQL
lotor) tracks were observed in mud under the bridge, but no evidence of other mammal activity
could be seen. In wetland areas such as these, herptile populations are usually abundant
though winter limits potential observations.
According to Dickson et al. (1980), six songbird species may be abundant in mature oak-gum-
cypress forest habitat: Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), Acadian flycatcher
(Empidonax virescens), Tufted titmouse (Pares ico rCarolina wren (Thryothorus
ludovicianus), Red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), and Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis). Downy
woodpeckers (Picoides u e ens) are also probably common here, and another 35 species of
songbirds may be present or regular visitors to such forests (Dickson et al. 1980). However,
the flooding and resulting sparse understory limit the canopy strata available, so may reduce
avian species diversity.
While Dickson et al. (1980) in their tabulation do not include young oak-gum-cypress as a
forest type, they do identify species found in young oak-hickory stands. In such stands the
following are usually abundant: Yellow-breasted chat (Icteri a virens), Indigo bunting
(Passerine _Qyanea), Rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo ervthronhthalmus), Field sparrow ( izell
pusilla), and Prairie warbler (Den roic discolor). Cardinal Cardin i cardinalis), Common
flicker (Col es auratus), Golden-winged warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera), Hooded warbler
(Wilsonia i na), Brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater , American goldfinch (C ueliIris is) may be common.
Physical Resources
The terrain in this portion of the Roanoke River floodplain features an extended series of
swamps and sloughs, oxbows, and shallow drains. Geologically, the project area lies on the
Cape Fear Formation, Cretaceous-aged sediments of sandstone and muddy sandstone of the
Coastal Plain physiographic region (Brown 1985). The 40 foot contour line generally marks
the separation between upland and bottomland, and except for the road constructed on an
embankment, the project area lies between 35 and 40 feet.
The modern soil survey for Northampton County due to be published in 1993 is not yet
available. But this project area is close to the Bertie County line and, in fact, appears on the
northwestern-most plate (#1) from that survey. Two soil associations dominate in lowest areas
of the landscape: Dorovan-Bibb-Johnston or Wehadkee-Chewacla (rant et al. 1990). In either
case, they are hydric soils, nearly level and poorly drained. Differences in drainage are a
matter of slight degree. The Dorovan-Bibb-Johnston soils have a "mucky surface layer with
sandy underlying material or a loamy surface layer and loamy and sandy underlying material."
Wehadkee-Chewacla soils "have a loamy surface layer and a loamy subsoil."
Samples taken on site had sandy underlying material, indicating that the soil is either Bibb or
Johnston, which are mapped together in die survey and appear to occupy all the drains in this
portion of the floodplain.
Aquatic Resources
The project occurs near the Roanoke River, on the broad alluvial floodplain formed by the
river's meandering migration. The Roanoke River arises in the Southern Appalachian
Mountains in Montgomery County, Virginia, at the confluence of the North and South Forks.
It enters North Carolina in northeastern Warren County, flows across Warren County, along
the Halifax-Northampton, Halifax-Bertie, Bertie-Martin, and Bertie-Washington County lines,
before entering Albemarle Sound at Bachelor Bay. Beginning in the mountains and flowing
through the Piedmont, water in the Roanoke River carries silt and clay sediments, and the
river is therefore classified as a red water river.
Over geologic-time, the Roanoke River migrated slowly towards the Southwest by eroding
sediments along the right bank and depositing some of the finer-textured material downstream
along the left bank. Thus, the right bank is much closer to the upland, and the left bank
(northeastern) is lower in elevation and swampier. Width of the entire bottomland in the
project area is over two miles, and before impoundment probably had a shorter hypdoperiod
than the sloughs (overflow channels) closer to the river.
This tributary to Bridgers Creek begins on the southeast side of US 258, about 1800 feet from
the current highway bridge. For most of this distance it flows northeasterly, approximately
parallel to the southeastern side of US 258, before turning abruptly to the northwest at the
bridge. It flows under the bridge and, after another 600 feet, it turns abruptly again to the
northeast, after which it enters one of the sloughs along the Roanoke River. Thus, drainage of
the project area is locally unique, since it flows northwest when all other areas flow southeast.
The waters of Bridgers Creek are classified as C (NCDEM 1993). The nearest BMAN site, in
the Roanoke River Overflow at Scotland Neck, was given a "Fair" rating in both 1985 and
1987 (NCDEM 1989, 1991). According to the report, however, the river at that site is three
meters deep, 80 meters wide, and has a sand substrate. Such conditions are totally different
from what occurs at the B-1299 site (Table 1), so the BMAN rating cannot be considered
indicative of water quality in Bridgers Creek.
A few years ago, between areas of fill under the existing bridge, beavers constructed a small
dam, and this dam restricts drainage on the southeast side of US 258, creating a shallow U-
shaped impoundment. The fill acts as an earthen dike that restricts water movement and
makes dam construction by beavers a simple matter of blocking the spillway, which is
currently only two or three feet wide. Downstream of the current bridge and outside of the
project area, other beaver dams have restricted as well, impounding water up to the base of the
beaver dam below the current bridge. Thus, these dams create a chain-like series of shallow
lakes.
Table 1. Stream Characteristics Observed At Bridgers Creek Crossing.
Observation Point U stream (100 ft) _7 Existing
Substrate Mud Mud
Current Flow Sluggish Trickle
Channel width (ft) Flooded pool from beaver dam 2.0
Bank Height (ft) 1 to 2 1.0
Water Depth (ft) 1.5 in the pool upstream 1.0
Water Color Dark Dark
Water Odor None None
Aquatic Vegetation Duckweed, pondweed None
Adjacent Vegetation Cypress-gum in standing water Grass
Wetlands Associated Broad flood lain adjacent Flood lain adjacent
Jurisdictional Topics
Wetlands
The entire site other than the causeway upon which the highway is located and a small area of
higher ground beneath the bridge was inundated when visited. The beaver activity appears to
maintain high water levels in all seasons. The cypress-gum type dominates the forest cover
(46% of the study area), and cypress knees are abundant throughout the flooded area upstream.
The inundated condition precludes most understory vegetation. Soils at this site are Bibb or
Johnston, which are hydric, and the Munsell soil color observed from samples was 5Y 4/2.
Protected Species
Under federal law, any federal action which is likely to result in a negative impact to federally
protected plants and animals is subject to review by the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) under one or more provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. In
the case of state-funded action, where federal wetland permits are likely to be required, for
example, the USFWS can require consultation to insure that the proposed action does not
jeopardize any endangered, threatened or protected species. Even in the absence of federal
actions, the USFWS has the power, through provisions of Section 9 of the ESA, to exercise
jurisdiction on behalf of a protected plant or animal. The USFWS and other wildlife resource
agencies also exercise jurisdiction in this resource area in accordance with the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 USC 661 et w4. North Carolina
laws are also designed to protect certain plants and animals where statewide populations are in
decline.
Federally Lifted Species
The US Fish and Wildlife Service Raleigh Field Office has identified only the Red-cockaded
Woodpecker (Picoides b r i and Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) as endangered
species occurring in Northampton County ( Mignogne letter 12/11/1992). Each species is
discussed below but neither species nor evidence of their occurrence was observed.
Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) typically require large bodies of water with abundant
fish populations and roosting habitat in proximity to this food supply (Luukkonen et al. 1989).
According to Luukkonen et al., "good perch trees are the most important characteristics of
forest stands for eagles." Eagles appear to prefer large, open-crowned perch trees, and eagle
roost habitat requires large trees with open structures at low densities.
As evidenced in the discussion above, such conditions do not exist within the project area nor
close enough to the project limits to require further consideration of this species.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) (RCW) nesting colonies usually occur in
mature pine (preferably Longleaf) stands with open understories, contiguous with areas where
pines dominate the surrounding forest to provide suitable foraging habitat. "Suitable habitat
consists of pine or pine-hardwood (50 percent or more pine) stands 30 years of age or older"
(Henry 1989). Although some colonies may be found in pine stands where midstory hardwood
encroachment has occurred, this situation is relatively rare.
As was noted in the discussion of plant communities, habitat suitable for RCW colonization
does not occur in or anywhere close to the study area. No pines were observed in the
corridor.
State Listed Species
The NC Natural Heritage Program indicates that it has no records of any listed species from in
proximity to this site, though there are records from Bull Neck Swamp, nearby (Kelly letter
1/12/93).
Unique and/or Prime-Quality Habitat. No unique and/or prime quality habitat was observed,
during the field survey. Occupying 20 percent of all forest land in Northampton County, both
forest communities are common (Thompson 1990). Both forest communities contain
sawtimber-sized trees over 9-inches dbh, but 43 percent of the forests in Northampton County
are classified as sawtimber (Thompson 1990). No individual very-large or very-old trees
occur within the study area.
Impacts
Closing US 258 during construction is not a feasible alternative since traffic volume is high
and no practical offsite detour exists. Because an on-site detour is required, the issue becomes
one of determining how the existing structure will be replaced and which side of the highway
is the preferable location for a temporary structure. Arguably, the soundest environmental
alternative is to (1) replace the current bridge with another bridge, and (2) improve drainage
under the structure by removing fill material that was probably placed there during earlier
construction. This action would decrease the beavers' ability to permanently flood areas
upstream and would preserve the bottomland forest cover. Extenuating circumstances and
costs suggest another alternative.
Replacement of the bridge using a eight foot diameter pipe culvert with fill above and around
it is proposed. The new fill would be 80 feet wide at the toe of the slope, somewhat wider
than the existing causeway due to increased pavement and shoulder width for the new
construction. About 0.2 acre of wetland will be permanently filled as a result of this action.
Hydrologic studies indicate that since the current bridge was designed and built before flood
controls on the river, the proposed structural change would not result in water retainage under
current systematically-controlled flooding regimes.
However, resident beaver populations will probably find such construction better suits their
own dam-building needs, with predictable consequences. The current bridge allows drainage
of about 70 acres of bottomland forest, and although bottomlands contain flood-tolerant
species, these species do not long tolerate stagnant water. A culvert could allow the beavers to
raise the height of their current dam, which would flood additional bottomland upstream. If
this flooding included the Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods community, then all trees and
most understory plants would be killed, since they do not tolerate inundation.
From an environmental standpoint, placing a detour on the downstream (west) side of the
current ridge would be pre era le since less mature forest would be cleared. However; a
"temporary detour to the east is proposed because a fiber-optic cable is buried west of theJ
highway. The tem on rarY ctetnur wnnld result in a temnorary filling of less than 1.5 acres of
)vs4and. Material would remain in place six to nine months and will be removed following
project completion. Clearing of about 0.5 acre of forest, mostly Coastal Plain bottomland
hardwood, would be temporary because the forest would naturally regenerate after removal of
the fill material provided the area is not regularly disturbed by mowing. The long-term effect
will be creation of about 0.5 acre of younger forest of the same type.
Accelerated soil erosion may occur during construction. In general, accelerated erosion
contributes to soil loss but, just as importantly, erosion sediments are deposited downstream.
In sufficient quantities, deposits clog and restrict drainage and smother aquatic organisms,
especially bottom-dwelling and bottom-reproducing species. These effects are largely
avoidable if suitable care is taken to control erosion during construction. To keep erosion at
acceptable levels during construction, Best Management Practices will be followed during all
construction phases.
Bottomland vegetation is extremely sensitive to changes in the depth and duration of flooding.
Ruts and soil compaction caused by operating machinery in the forested bottomland could
create small water impoundments by restricting water movement. Impoundments could, in
J
turn, cause existing trees to die or fail to regenerate adequately. Care must be taken to restrict
vehicles and other machinery from operating within the bottomland during construction, so the
natural drainage regime, to which the current vegetation is adapted, is preserved.
Permit Coordination
A permit will not be required from the Corps of Engineers because the Nationwide Section
404 permit provisions for Categorical Exclusion are applicable, and the provisions of 33 CFR
330.5 (b) and 330.6 will be followed.
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR), will be required. This certificate
is issued for any activity which may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal
permit is required.
Erosion and sedimentation control measures will be strictly enforced during construction to
minimize unnecessary impacts to stream and wetland ecosystems. Best management practices
will also be implemented.
Compensatory wetland mitigation is not required under a Nationwide Permit. The temorary
impacts predicted as a result of an on-site detour do not permanently alter the wetland
functions in evidence at this site. Thus, area permanently filled and therefore no longer
functioning as wetland will be very small.
Literature Cited
Belanger, R.P., and R.L. Anderson. 1989. A guide for visually assessing crown densities of
loblolly and shortleaf pines. USDA For. Ser., Southeast For Exp. Sta. Res Note SE-
352.
Brown, P. M. 1985. Geologic map of North Carolina. Div. of Land Res., Dept. of Natl.
Res. and Community Dev., Raleigh, NC.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands
and deepwater habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79131. Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Dept of Interior: Washington, D.C. 103 p.
Dickson, J. G., R. N. Conner, and J. H. Williamson. 1980. Relative abundance of breeding
birds in forest stands in the southeast.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg MS.
Eyre, F.H. (Ed.) 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Soc. of Amer.
For., Washington, DC. 148 p., map.
Henry, V. G. 1989. Guidelines for Preparation of Biological Assessments and Evaluations
for the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region,
Atlanta, GA. 13 p. appendices.
Husch, B., C. 1. Miller, and T. W. Beers. 1972. Forest mensuration. The Ronald Press Co.,
NY. 410 p.
Luukkonen, D. R.; T. J. Smith; D. N. Chester; J. D. Fraser; and D. F. Stauffer. 1989.
Ecology, habitat and management of bald eagles at B. Everett Jordan Lake, North
Carolina. Project Final Report. Dept. Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.
NCDEM. 1989. Benthic macroinvertebrate ambient network (BMAN) water quality review
1983-1988. Water Quality Tech. Rept. No. 89-08. NC Dept. of Env., Health, and
Nat. Res., Div. Env. Mgt., Water Qual. Sect., Raleigh, NC.
NCDEM. 1990. Classifications and water quality standards assigned to the waters of the
Roanoke River Basin. NC Dept. Envir. Health, and Nat. Res.: Raleigh, North
Carolina.
NCDEM. 1991. Biological assessment of water quality in North Carolina streams: benthic
macroinvertebrate data base and long term changes in water quality, 1983-1990. NC
Dept. of Env., Health, and Nat. Res., Div. Env. Mgt., Water Qual. Sect., Raleigh,
NC.
Schafale, M. P. and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North
Carolina, Third Approximation. N. C. Natl. Heritage Prog., Div. of Parks and
Recreation, N. C. Dept. of Environ., Health, and Natl. Res., Raleigh. 325 p.
Tant, P. L., R. H. Ranson, J. A. Gagnon, E. W. Mellete, 1. M. Allen, and W. A. Hayes, Jr.
1990. Soil survey of Bertie County, North Carolina. USDA Soil Conservation Service
Thompson, M. T. 1990. Forest Statistics for the Northern Coastal Plain of North Carolina,
1990. USDA, For. Serv., Southeast. For. Expt. Sta. Res. Bul 5E-113. 52 p.
Wilson, R. L. 1976. Elementary forest surveying and mapping. Oregon State Univ. Book
Stores, Inc., Corvallis. 1 p.
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
insignificant environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have a significant adverse effect on the quality of the human
or natural environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications, and best
management practices.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No
significant change inland-use is expected to result from construction of the project.
i"
An underground elophone able will have to be relocated due to the recommended temporary
detour. The over ity conflicts for the project are consisered low.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition will be
limited. No relocations are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
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.
Since the bridge is to be replaced in its present location, the project is exempt from the
Farmland Protection Policy Act.
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 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 existing bridge, built in 1929, is the only structure in the project area. The structure was
reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Officer and determined not to be eligible for the
National Register; therefore, no further compliance with Section 106 is required.
The State Historic Preservation Officer has also reviewed the archaeological aspects of the
project and determined that .
The project does not involve any Section 4(f) properties. There are no publicly-owned parks,
historic sites, recreational facilities or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state or local
significance in the vicinity of the project.
The project is located with the Northern Piedmont Air Quality Control Region. The ambient
air quality for Northampton County has been determined to be in compliance with the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards. Since this project is located in an area where the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any transportation control measures, the
conformity procedures of 23 CFR 770 do not apply to this project.
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, its impact on noise
levels and air quality will be insignificant. Noise levels could increase during construction but
will be temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in
accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality
in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment
requirements of FHPM 7-7-3 (highway traffic noise) and FHPM 7-7-9 (air quality) and no
additional reports are required.
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, combined
with an on-site exploration, revealed no underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in
the project area.
Northampton County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The
approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 4. The amount of
floodplain area to be affected is not considered to be significant. There are no practical
alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. All reasonable measures will be taken to minimize
any possible harm.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no serious adverse environmental
effects will result from implementation of the project.
??, ,?.

M I
I C
cn
fo
cn

:n
O
w
O
m
?1
41
-I.
_J
I
I
r
v
'11
rn
YJ
!,
:n
0
:.v
O
C
m
m
r ? ?y
:zl =.
D rri
- 1
v ¦

,n Ti

L
r
C <i

,? j?

cn
Ca
i71
t)
l/
D
e•
?U
r
r rr a?
P?
I
.n
u
:y
v
r
;e
M
c+?
IP
1 -1)
B-1299
BRIDGE NO. 74
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY
NORTH APPROACH
SOUTH APPROACH
SIDE VIEW
FIGURE 3
' U
?y
'Ce
4- -? ?'? elm - - ;` \ 25s J•
- II
561
k
---------- --
---------- --
t 1 BRIDGE NO. 74
1.74
1 It
L
N
it
.l
1
1
T
144
\
•4 1
- u
Q o I -?
V
rt ?•
\ l
I' \
1
N
n •rc.•
0
1
u
] 1
S /
1
I
'i
• 111
::. •.
C --l
v TT ? , ?T
i ?
r \
( \ V
Q-
:
.' :::•:: :. ::::'::. .:::: •
04 \
- - :.;,:.:..:?,•. '.;?::. ,\ M1, :: WSJ ? 1- YEAR FLOODPLAIN
MO.
........::::.....:
_ r
': H •:
r
R
..... :::::::.....
^•.w::.. ;rte ?C :v:•:: ..}::.? • • \\
1\
,Y :•:•iJ:
I
I
:: is ?: ::.?R:;:•:: •J :.. •::;: •: .; ;. `,, ?.. - _
•:ti:'?•=.• ?':•:?y:' :.:air. `? ..'`.ti3:•::: • .\..:
35
•::?.::::::::.:.: ':J.•::::: ::•: :•::•i'r:•'r:•i:•i. •irs:-::•:': i::•r:? :'fY}.': -
J.•:
'i•: :?9'.•'a- •: tea:;:; ':i?!S-:•i -:/.. .?<•:.. .;.?e;• _ -
::•:_
N 74
E
•__ :. Y:;: :: ?: ; -- : ::<,; HAMPTON COUNTY
_ ?` _ FIGURE 4