19920313 Ver al_Complete File_19920603

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO June 3, 1992
Regulatory Branch
Action ID. 199202335 and Nationwide Permit No. 23
(Approved Categorical Exclusions)
Mr. L. J. Ward, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
WETLVUDS I'.i E,;
VUER OUP LITY SECti:"I _
Reference your letter of April 24, 1992, informing us of your plans to
place excavated/fill material in the waters/wetlands of the Northeast Cape
Fear River associated with the replacement of Bridges Nos. 130 and 132 on S.R.
1306, Duplin County, North Carolina, B-2133, State Project No. 8.2240901,
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1306(1).
For the purposes of the U.S Army Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program,
Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 330.6, published in the
Federal Register on November 22, 1991, lists nationwide permits.
Authorization, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, was provided for activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole or
in part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or
department has determined, pursuant to the CEQ Regulation for the Implementing
the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, that the
activity, work or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which
neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment, and the Office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished
notice of the agency's or department's application for the categorical
exclusion and concurs with that determination.
Your work is authorized by this nationwide permit provided it is
accomplished in strict accordance with the enclosed conditions. This
nationwide permit does not relieve you of the responsibility to obtain any
required State or local approval.
This verification will be valid for 2 years from the date of this. letter
unless the nationwide authorization is modified, reissued, or revoked. Also,
this verification will remain valid for the 2 years if, during that period,
4

-2-
the nationwide permit authorization is reissued without modification or the
activity complies with any subsequent modification of the nationwide permit
authorization. If during the 2 years, the nationwide permit authorization
expires or is suspended or revoked, or is modified, such that the activity
would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit,
activities which have commenced (i.e., are under construction) or are under
contract to commence in reliance upon the nationwide permit will remain
authorized provided the activity is completed within 12 months of the date of
the nationwide permit's expiration, modification or revocation, unless
discretionary authority has been exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify,
suspend, or revoke the authorization.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Jeffery Richter, Wilmington
Field Office, Regulatory Branch, telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. John Parker
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
4r. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687

STATE
K 4?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON I April 24, 19
SECRETARY
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
c WILL
:FiIlMI a
T,"?TE HIGH
OF HIGHWAYS
MARLEY, JR., P.E.
AY ADMINISTRATOR
Subject: SR 1306, Replace Bridge Nos. 132 and 130 over North Cape Fear
River and Overflow, Duplin County, B-2133, State Project
8.2240901, Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1306(1)
Attached for your info n is a copy of the project planning report for the
subject projec he project is ei-ng,)processed by the Federal Highway Adminis-
tration as ?a "Categorical Excl n"in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
Therefore, we-do-not--an icipate requesting an individual permit but propose to
proceed under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A
(B-23) issued November 22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of
Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed in the
construction of the project.
Vie do not anticipate that a permit will be required from the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources for this project.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at
733-3141.
Sincerelywd, II
-a d? on
nE a a
., M n g e r
LJW/plr Planning and Environmental Branch
Attachment
cc: Mr. John Parker, Permit Coordinator, w/report
Mr. John Dorney, Environmental Management, w/report
Mr. C. W. Leggett, P. E.
Mr. J. T. Peacock, Jr., P. E.
Mr. A. L. Hankins, Jr., P. E.
Mr. D. J. Bowers, P. E.
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
r`
Duplin County, SR 1306
Bridge Nos. 132 & 130
ver North East Cape Fear River and Overflow
State Project 8.2240901
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1306(1)
B-2133
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
4De 72?e L. J. Ward, P. E., Mana er
Pl
anning and Environmental Branch
4/CtIg Z
Date ,?rL.Nicholas Graf, . E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
o? q ??
v
Duplin County, SR 1306
Bridge Nos. 132 & 130
Over North East Cape Fear River and Overflow
State Project 8.2240901
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1306(1)
B-2133
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
April, 1992
Documentation Prepared in
Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Ju a A. Hunkins
P ject Planning Engineer
14
14Q NQG..//.D
kf
Wayne ,Elliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
4 `•
??'%,?pgNK Ids . ??•?`
i

Duplin County, SR 1306
Bridge Nos. 132 & 130
Over North East Cape Fear River and Overflow
State Project 8.2240901
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1306(1)
B-2133
Bridge Nos. 132 and 130 over the North East Cape Fear River and
overflow, respectively, are included in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement
Program. The project location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial
environmental impacts are anticipated. The project has been classified as
a Federal "categorical exclusion."
I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge Nos. 132 and 130 are to be replaced at their existing
locations (see Figure 2).
The recommended replacement structure for Bridge No. 132 (Main) is a
bridge having a length of 130 feet. The proposed clear deck width of 28
feet will provide a 22-foot travelway with 3-foot shoulders. The
recommended replacement structure for Bridge No. 130 (Overflow) consists
of a double-barrel 8' X 7' reinforced concrete box culvert. The culvert
should be of sufficient length to accommodate a 22-foot roadway section
and 6-foot graded shoulders, the typical section which is to be provided
throughout the roadway portion of the project. The grade of the existing
roadway is to be retained.
Traffic should be detoured on existing secondary roads during the
construction period, as shown on Figure 1.
Estimated cost, based on current prices, is $479,000. The cost of
the project, as contained in the 1992-1998 Transportation Improvement
Program, is $ 373,000.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts. No special or unique environmental
commitments are required for this project.
If the State Historic Preservation Officer determines that an
intensive archaeological survey is needed for this project, the survey
will be completed prior to construction.
Approximately 0.4 acre of wetlands will be disrupted by the project.
Best Management Practices will be utilized to minimize these impacts.
? v
2
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1306 is classified as a rural minor collector in the Statewide
Functional Classification System and is part of the Federal-Aid System
(FAS-1306). The route traverses a rural, wooded area of Duplin County.
In the vicinity of the bridges, SR 1306 has a 17-foot pavement with
8-foot shoulders. The two structures are located about 590 feet apart.
The vertical alignment is flat. The horizontal alignment through the
project area is tangent.
The current traffic volume of 500 VPD "is expected to increase to'
approximately 1050 VPD by the year 2015. The projected volume includes
2% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 3% dual-tired vehicles (DTT).
The speed limit is 55 MPH.
Bridge No. 132 (Main) crosses the North East Cape Fear River (see
Figure 3) while Bridge No. 130 serves as the overflow structure (see
Figure 4). Both bridge structures have a timber floor on timber joists
supported by end bents (bulkhead abutments) and interior bents with timber
caps on timber piles. CharacterisItics of the bridges are as follows:
Bridge No. 132
(Main)
Length (feet)
Clear Roadway Width (feet)
Year Constructed
Weight Limit (tons)
SV
TTST
Sufficiency Rating
103
19.2
1955
9
16
17.6
Bridge No. 130
Overflow
53
19.3
1955
9
17
34.7
A total of six school buses travel daily over this portion of SR
1306.
No accidents were reported in the vicinity of the project during the
period from July, 1988 to June, 1991.
IV. ALTERNATES
Two alternative methods for replacing Bridge Nos. 132 and 130 were
studied. In each alternate, both bridges are to be replaced at their
existing locations. Bridge No. 132 (Main) is to be replaced with a
130-foot long bridge. The recommended structure width of 28 feet will
provide a 22-foot travelway and 3-foot shoulders across the bridge.
Bridge No. 130 (Overflow) is to be replaced with a double barrel 8' X 7'
reinforced concrete box culvert. The culvert should be of sufficient
length to accommodate a 22-foot travelway and 6-foot shoulders, the
typical roadway section which will be provided throughout the project.
With either alternate, minor widening of the roadway will be necessary
on the approaches to the structures from the north and south and between
the two structures. The design speed for both alternatives is 60 MPH.
The existing horizontal and vertical alignment of the roadway should be
retained.
The alternates vary primarily in the method of handling traffic
during the construction. The alternates studied, shown in Figure 2, are
as follows:
Alternate 1 (Recommended) - Bridge Nos. 132 and 130 should be replaced at
their existing locations. SR 1306 will be closed at the
project site during the construction period, and traffic
will be detoured on existing secondary roads, as shown in
Figure 1.
Alternate 2 - Bridge Nos. 132 and 130 would be replaced at their existing
locations. Traffic would be maintained on-site by
constructing a temporary detour immediately east
(downstream) of the existing structures. This on-site
detour would consist of an 80-foot long bridge for Bridge
No. 132 (Main) and one 48-inch pipe for Bridge No. 130
(Overflow). The approximate length of the temporary detour
is 1450 feet, and a design speed of about 45 MPH would be
provided by the temporary detour.
Consideration was given to the "do-nothing" and the "rehabilitation"
alternatives. The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate
closure of the bridges. This is not prudent due to the traffic service
provided by SR 1306. "Rehabilitation" of the old bridges is not feasible
due to their age and deteriorated condition.
V. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs of the studied alternates are as follows:
Recommended
Alternate 1 Alternate 2
Structures
No. 132 (Main) $ 210,000 $ 210,000
No. 130 (Overflow) 45,000 45,000
Permanent Roadway Approaches 113,000 113,000
Temporary Detour Structure
No. 132 (Main) -- 44,000
No. 130 (Overflow) -- 3,000
Temporary Detour -- 309,000
Structure Removal
No. 132 (Main) 12,000 12,000
No. 130 (Overflow) 7,000 7,000
Engineering &
Contingencies 58,000 111,000
Right of Way 34,000 38,000
TOTAL $ 479,000 $ 892,000
4
VII. DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 132 over North East Cape Fear River should be replaced at
its existing location (see Figure 2). The recommended bridge length is
130 feet. The recommended structure width of 28 feet will provide a
22-foot travelway with three feet of lateral clearance on each side.
Bridge No. 130, the overflow structure, should be replaced at its
existing location. The recommended structure at this location is a double
barrel 8' X 7' reinforced concrete box culvert. This culvert should be of
sufficient length to accommodate a 22-foot travelway and 6-foot graded
shoulders, the typical roadway section which will be provided throughout
the project. Minor widening of the roadway will occur on the approaches
to the structures from the north and south for a distance of about
100 feet and for a distance of about 600 feet between the two structures.
The design speed is 60 MPH. The existing horizontal and vertical
alignment of the roadway should be retained.
Alternate 1 is recommended because it costs $413,000 less than
Alternate 2. Moreover, Alternate 1 results in the least disruption to the
adjacent wetlands. The division office concurs with the recommended
alternate.
VII. TRAFFIC DETOUR
Traffic is to be detoured along existing secondary roads during the
construction period, as shown in Figure 1. The average vehicle will be
required to travel an additional 5.5 miles. A nine-month road closure
period is anticipated.
Provision of an on-site detour is estimated to cost an additional
$413,00 and is not justifiable due to the excessive cost of the on-site
detour and the availability of a suitable detour route. The detour
roadway is adequate to accommodate affected traffic during the
construction period.
A road user analysis (based on 500 VPD and an average of 5.5 miles of
indirectional travel) indicates the cost of additional travel would be
approximately $223,000 during the nine-month construction period. The
estimated cost of providing an on-site detour is $413,000, resulting in a
benefit-cost ratio of 0.5. This ratio indicates that detouring traffic
along secondary roads is justifiable.
One bridge is located on the detour route (Bridge No. 417 on
SR 1519). This bridge is included in the 1992-1998 Transportation
Improvement Program for replacement as B-2550 with construction in
FY 1994. Bridge No. 417 is currently posted at 7 tons and has a
sufficiency rating of 18.5. Replacement of Bridge No. 417 (B-2550) prior
to the replacement of Bridge Nos. 132 and 130 (B-2133) in FY 95 will
provide legal load limits for the traffic detour shown in Figure 1.
The school bus supervisor for Duplin County indicates that the
rerouting of traffic during the construction period would be an
inconvenience for the buses which travel on that portion of SR 1306;
5
therefore, this bridge replacement project should be scheduled so that as
much construction as possible occurs during the summer months to minimize
inconveniences associated with the rerouting of school buses.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact.
Replacement of inadequate bridges will result in safer traffic operations.
These bridge replacements will not have an adverse effect on the
quality of the human or natural environment with the use of current NCDOT
standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or
zoning regulation. No significant change in land use is expected to
result from construction of the project.
No impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way
acquisition will be limited.
No impact on public facilities or services is expected. The project
is not expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious
opportunities in the area.
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 Area of Potential Effect (APE) has been delineated and reviewed
by a staff architectural historian. There are no buildings located within
the APE. Bridge Nos. 132 and 135 were built in 1955 and are not eligible
for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Therefore,
this project is in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and the Department of Transportation
Act of 1966.
Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
indicates there are no recorded archaeological sites within the immediate
project vicinity; however, some sites have been recorded south of the
project area. The SHPO will be given an opportunity to further review the
archaeological aspects of the project to determine whether an intensive
survey should be undertaken. If necessary, the survey will be
accomplished prior to construction.
Since Bridge Nos. 132 and 130 are to be replaced at their existing
locations, this project is exempt from the Farmland Protection Policy Act.
The upland community located in the study area is a narrow strip of
vegetation that is growing on fill material placed when the original road
and bridges were constructed. Roadside mowing activities occur in this
6
plant community. Various plants and herbs are dominant; plants that may be
observed include the vines Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia),
poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and a herbaceous plant named pokeweed
(Ph_ytolacca americana).
A utility corridor parallels the east side of the roadway. Portions
of this area are dominated by dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium),
winged sumac (Rhus copallina), wild cherry (Prunus serotina), ash
seedlings, and rush (Juncus effusus).
The majority of the study area is located in the floodplain of the
Northeast Cape Fear River. Two wetland plant communities are located in
the study area -- the swamp forest and the disturbed shrub-scrub
communities. Dominant canopy species in the swamp forest community
include: bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), red maple (Acer rubrum), and a
few scattered sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua). A sparse understory
layer is composed of a scattered red maple saplings and ash saplings
(Fraxinus sp.). The ground cover is also sparse but has a larger variety
of pints than the understory. Common species include Microstegium
(Microste ium vimineum), netted chain fern (Woodwardia areolata), and
false nettle (Boe meria cylindrica). Cow-itch (Campsis radicans) vines
are common. On slightly higher elevations, American holly (Ilex opaca),
and strawberry bush (Euonymus americanus) can be observed.
Within the utility corridor which parallels the east side of the
roadway, a shrub-scrub community exists. This area is a disturbed wetland
dominated by elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), cane (Arundinaria
gigantea), sweetgum saplings, river birch saplings (Betula nigra), and
white bay (Magnolia virginiana). Vines such as Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica) and catbrier (Smilax sp.) are also observed.
Construction activities may disrupt the man-dominated, swamp forest,
and disturbed shrub-scrub communities. The impacts to these communities,
in acres, are summarized below.
Summary of Anticipated Plant Community Impacts
Plant Community Alternate 1 Alternate 2
Temporary P & T1
Man-Dominated 0.6 acre 0.0 acre 0.6 acre
Swamp Forest. 0.2 1.2 1.4
Disturbed-shrub-scrub 0.2 0.2 0.4
Total 1.0 acres 1.4 acres 2.4 acres
P & T1 - Permanent and Temporary total
7
The majority of the study area is located in the wetland community
floodplain. Alternate 1 will result in less disruption to the wetlands
communities in the project vicinity. Efforts will be made to minimize
erosion, especially in areas where new fill is placed. Disturbed sites
should be revegetated as quickly as possible to minimize erosion.
Mammals that may be found in the study area include Virginia opossum
(Didelphis virginiana), star-nosed mole (Condylura cristata), black bear
(Ursus americanus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and mink (Mustela vison).
Avian fauna anticipated in the study area include pied-billed grebe
(Podilymbus podiceps), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), tricolored heron
(Egretta tricolor), king rail (Rallus elegans), and Carolina wren
(Thryothorus ludovicianus).
Amphibians and reptiles that are likely in the study area include
Mabee's salamander (Ambystoma mabeei), marbled salamander (Ambystoma
opacum), southern dusky salamander (Desmognathus auriculatus), dwarf
salamander (Eurycea quadidigitata), green treefrog (Hyla cinerea), spotted
turtle (Clemmys uttata), and Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis).
The Northeast Cape Fear River may support such species as the redfin
pickerel (Esox americanus), warmouth (Le omis ulosus), and flier
(Centrarchus macropterus). Other fish species anticipated in the study
area include largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), chain pickerel (Esox
niger), red breast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), blue gill (Lepomis
macrochirus), longnose gar (Lepisosteus osseus), common carp (Cyprinus
carpio), and gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum). Anadromous fish species
occur in the Northeast Cape Fear River over six miles downstream of the
project in Goshen Swamp. Anadromous fish species are not likely in the
study area, according to the Division of Marine Fisheries.
The following amphibians and reptiles may be anticipated in Northeast
Cape Fear River waters: lesser and greater siren (Siren intermedia and S.
lacertina), Carolina mudpuppy (Necturus lewsii), three-lined lamander
Eurycea uttolineata), rainbow snake (Farancia erytrogramma), and
cottonmouth (Ag istrodon piscivorus).
Construction of a temporary detour could result in the reduction of
wildlife habitat. Alternate 1 is preferred since less wildlife habitat
will be disturbed. Minimal clearing during construction will retain
wildlife habitat associated with the river.
Erosion and resulting siltation will be kept to a minimum during
construction, especially upstream of wetlands and aquatic habitats.
Strict erosion and sedimentation controls will be adhered to during the
construction period. Structures that allow for maximum light penetration
and minimal bottom disturbances are recommended. Best Management Practices
will be implemented and enforced to minimize erosion. Upon project
completion, all cleared and grubbed areas along the temporary detour and
existing roadway will be revegetated as quickly as possible to reduce loss
of wildlife habitat.
8
Soils information was obtained
(Soil Conservation Service, 1959).
study area are tabulated below.
from the Duplin County Soil Survey
Three soils which are mapped in the
Soil Type Summary
Name Slope Drainage Hydric Soils
Johnston loam 0-1 very poorly Hydric
Okenee fine sandy loam 0-2 very poorly Non-Hydric
Okenee loam 0-2 very poorly Non-Hydric
Johnston loam developed from alluvial materials washed from coastal
plain uplands. They occur on bottoms along major streams. These soils
are characterized by a high water table and very slow runoff. The
majority of the study area is mapped as Johnston loam soil.
Okenee fine sandy loam and Okenee loam phase soils developed from old
alluvium washed down from coastal plain uplands. These soils occur on low
stream terraces and have a high water table.
The project is located in the Cape Fear River Basin. Water quality of
the Northeast Cape Fear River is classified as C Sw (DEM, 1991). Best
usage recommendations for Class C waters include aquatic life propagation
and survival, fishing wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
Swamp waters (Sw) are waters that have low velocities and other natural
characteristics which are different from adjacent streams.
No High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) or
water supply segments classified as WS-I or WS-II are located in the study
area, or within one mile downstream of the project. It is important to
note, however, that 20 miles downstream of the study area, the Northeast
Cape Fear river is classified as a High Quality Water.
The Northeast Cape Fear River is not classified in the study area as
a Wild and Scenic River by the federal government, nor as a state Natural,
Scenic or Recreational River. Benthic macroinvertebrate survey data are
not available in the study area, but a survey was completed approximately
six miles downstream of the study area where NC 11 crosses the Northeast
Cape Fear River. The bioclass in this area is rated as fair. The
bioclass is a measure of the diversity and variety of benthic
macroinvertebrates present in samples.
Jurisdictional wetlands as defined by 33 CFR 328.3 are those areas
that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated
conditions. Criteria employed for wetland determinations are described in

9
the "Corps of Engineers Wetlands- Delineation Manual" (Environmental
Laboratory, 1987). Any action that proposes to place fill into these
areas falls under the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers under
the Provisions of the Clean Water Act.
Wetland boundaries were determined from observations of vegetation,
soils and hydrology. The vegetation is classified as hydrophytic due to
the dominance of plant characterized as being hydrophytic. Soil color is
hydric due to the low chroma values. Wetland hydrological characteristics
observed are indicative of periodic inundation. Stains on tree trunks
indicating flooding, the presence of cypress knees and silt are present in
the study area. Anticipated wetland impacts are relatively minor for both
alternates. Potential impacts (in acres) to the adjacent wetland
communities for each alternate are summarized below:
Summary of Wetland Impact by Alternate
Plant Community
Swamp Forest
Disturbed shrub-scrub
Total
Alternate 1 Alternate 2
Temporary P & T1
0.2 acre 1.2 acres 1.4 acres
0.2 0.2 0.4
0.4 acre 1.4 acres 1.8 acres
P & T1 - Permanent and Temporary total
State permits are administered through the Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR). One state permit that is likely to
be required is the 401 Water Quality Certification. This certificate is
issued for any activity which may result in a discharge and for which a
federal permit is required.
Duplin County is not within the Coastal Area Management Act's
(CAMA's) jurisdiction.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) were consulted to locate any occurrences
of protected species in the study area.
Two federally-protected species are listed by the USFWS in Duplin
County (November 19, 1991). These species are the red-cockaded woodpecker
(Picoid s borealis) and the American alligator (Alligator
mississippiensis).
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) nests in living pine trees that are
greater than 60 years of age. The RCW forages in pine or pine-dominated
stands (greater than 50 percent pine) at least 30 years of age.
10
Contiguous foraging habitat is utilized by the RCW within 0.5 mile of the
colony site. The study area supports a swamp forest. No pine dominated
stands are located in the study area. No impacts to the RCW will occur
from project construction.
The American alligator occurs in varying wetland habitats and is a
very mobile organism. The NCNHP files do not report alligators in the
study area and none were observed during the field visit. This species is
protected due to the similarity of appearance of the alligator to the
crocodile. Since the American Crocodile is not found in North Carolina,
the alligator is not protected by the USFWS in the state.
Other candidate species listed by the USFWS in Duplin County include:
Savanna cowbane (Oxypolis ternata) and wireleaf dropseed (Sporobolus
teretifolius). Both these plants are not protected by the USFWS at this
time. The savanna cowbane is not state protected; the wireleaf dropseed,
however, has a state status of Threatened and is afforded state
protection. This plant occurs in wet savannahs in the eastern portion of
the state. Since the study does not support a wet savannah, the plant is
not likely to occur in the study area. No impacts are anticipated.
No state-protected-species are listed in the study area according to
the NCNHP files.
The project is located within the Southern Coastal Plain Air Quality
Region. The ambient air quality for Duplin 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.
This 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 and laws and regulations of
the North Carolina State Implementation Plans for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the noise and
air quality assessment requirements of FHPM 7-7-3 and no additional
reports are required.
Duplin County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance
Emergency Program. The approximate 100-year floodplain in the project
area is shown in Figure 5. The project site lies within the floodplain
zone.
A permit will not be required from the Corps of Engineers since the
Nationwide Section 404 permit provisions are applicable, and the
provisions of 330.5(b) and 330.6 will be followed.
11
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no serious
environmental effects will result from implementation of the project.
JH/plr
r w

4
0
6
x.534
1.2 N 153
o,%
s 1306
Outlaws Bridge
L
•?- 1562 a QA
4 4 N
1306•
2•,g 1531
•'X e Q Pir.
1501 4 0 1532
aj 6 903
Herri '4s j
2'6 Albertson
519 1306f Cross.-Aads ts3t' i6 Church
1521 _ 1.0 l , 4
t' t sa pAlbertsony
41
1502 .8 306 L 1501
? ? ? 1
C 111
1533 1567 0 1306
1523
1502! O
1
SCOttS
1521
S
tore

.6- b •
' 1519
1521 o b
1
9 152.0
CIO ?
1306 ?
?b
1510 tt-r I
1500 I 1518
6
/ /
O:
•
`rd.? ttheu%s
15191a
2.
BRIDGE N0.'417 1546
B-2550
'501 1 1 1
-- ? ? / 903
i
4
BRIDGE NO. 132
MAIN BRIDGE
DUPLIN COUNTY

SOUTH APPROACH
SIDE VIEW
•
BRIDGE NO. 130
OVERFLOW
DUPLIN COUNTY
NORTH APPROACH
SOUTH APPROACH
SIDE VIEW
FIGURE 4
.•..:•:•. .•..:•:.:•:
J/
i
II
I.
I I
OUTLAW'
BRIDGE
PROJECT SI
1501
II? IJO6
it
I I
15,7 °
HERRINGS
CROSSROADS
1514
1511
[I3061
.l
11
u
n
I I
?n
\ u
V
GA
?? 111
ZONE A 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN -f
151
ZONE X i /
? h
/?i s Q0n Bryn`
1519 i1
// 11
II
I I
PLESANT GROVE
1518 S

b
, :-:I:
FIGURE 5
..........:.
>........