19930263 Ver 1_Complete File_20100726

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402.1890
IN REPLY REFER TO April 15, 1993
Regulatory Branch
Action ID. 199301795 and Nationwide Permit No. 23 (Approved Categorical
Exclusions)
Mr. B.J. O'Quinn, P.E.
Assistant Branch Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
State of North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Q'Quinn:
Reference your notification of April 1, 1993, concerning your plans to
proceed with the replacement of Bridge No. 417 over the Northeast Cape Fear
River on S.R. 1519 in Duplin County,`North Carolina, as a "Categorical
Exclusion" in accordance with the Federal Highway Administration's regulations
under 23 CFR 771.115(b).
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 (NWP).
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 has 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 NWP provided it is accomplished in strict
accordance with the enclosed conditions and provided you receive a Section 401
water quality certification from the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management and, in the coastal area, a consistency determination from the
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management. You should contact Mr. John
Dorney, telephone [phone], regarding water quality certification, and
..4 -2-

Mr. Steve Benton, telephone [phone], regarding consistency
determination. This NWP does not relieve you of the responsibility to obtain
other required State or local approval.
This verification will be valid for 2 years from the date of this letter
unless the NWP authorization is modified, reissued, or revoked. Also, this
verification will remain valid for the 2 years if, during that period, the NWP
authorization is reissued without modification or the activity complies with
any subsequent modification of the NWP authorization. If during the 2 years,
the NWP 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
NWP, activities which have commenced (i.e., are under construction) or are
under contract to commence in reliance upon the NWP will remain authorized
provided the activity is completed within 12 months of the date of the NWP'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. Jeffrey Richter, Wilmington
Field Office, Regulatory Branch, telephone [phone].
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
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Mr. Jim Gregson
Wilmington Regional Office
NC Division of Environmental
Management
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845
,.,K'r. 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
r- -_- 1
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TP ANSPORTATIOI 1P DS CROUP'
114?TER QIIALI?1T t,
Al ES a. HUNT. I IR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS ----
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27011-5201 SECRETARY
March 29, 1993
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
Subject: Duplin County, Replacement of Bridge No. 417 over
Northeast Cape Fear River on SR 1519, Federal Aid
Project BRZ=1519(1), State Project No. 8.2241001,
TIP No. B-2550.
Attached for your information are three copies of the
project planning report for the subject project. The project
is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
Therefore, we do o anticipate requestin individual
permit but prop se o proceed under a N ion ide Permit in
accordance wit 33 FR 330 Appendix A (, -23 issued November
22, 1991, by t e rps of Engineers. T rovisions of
Section 330.4 an Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2734
(Categorical Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are
providing one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management, for their review.
..A4
If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call Mr. Doug Huggett at 733-9770.
Sincerely, 4 B. n, PE
Assistant Branch Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
BJO/dvh
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Ernie Jahnke, COE-Wilmington
\,/Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DEM
Mr. John Parker, NCDEHNR, DCM
w/out attachment
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, PE, Highway Design Branch
Mr. A.L. Hankins, PE, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith Jr., PE, Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, Roadway Design Unit
Mr. D.J. Bowers, PE, Division 3 Engineer
Mr. J. Bissett, Planning and Environmental Branch
Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and Environmental Branch
i
Duplin County
SR 1519
Bridge No. 417 over Northeast Cape Fe
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1519(1)
State Project No. 8.2241001
T.I.P. No. B-2550
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:

. j. wars, t'.t_., manager
lanning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
3
TE Nichola Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
'TR
t i i?'i
Duplin County
SR 1519
Bridge No. 417 over Northeast Cape Fear River
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1519(1)
State Project No. 8.2241001
T.I.P. No. B-2550
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
September, 1992
Documentation Prepared By DSA GROUP of N.C., Inc.
Keith D. Lewis, P.E.
i;D
Project Manager - Transportation
y D L[+\
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
C?4 A641 a??"
L Gail imes, P. Unit Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
L
oz. . A. Bissett, Jr., P.E.
Project Manager
Duplin County
SR 1519
Bridge No. 417 over Northeast Cape Fear River
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1519(1)
State Project No. 8.2241001
T.I.P. No. B-2550
Bridge No. 417 is included in the current Transportation Improvement Program. The location
is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is
classified as a Federal 'Categorical Exclusion'.
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
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.
The Division Office recommends that this bridge be constructed in the same contract as
project B-2133 (see Figure 1). Project B-2550 should be constructed first because of the
lower weight limit, and the detour route would use B-2133. When construction is complete on
B-2550 then construct project B-2133 with traffic detoured over the new B-2550 bridge.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 417 will be replaced in its existing location as shown in Figure 2. It should be
replaced with a new bridge having a clear roadway width of 26 feet and length of 175 feet.
The structure will provide a 22 foot travelway and two foot shoulders on each side.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing grade
at this location.
The existing roadway will be widened to a 22 foot pavement throughout the project limits.
Traffic will be detoured along existing roads during construction as shown in Figure 1.
The estimated cost, based on current prices, is $374,500. The estimated cost of the project,
as shown in the 1993-1999 Transportation Improvement Program, is $440,000.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1519 is classified as a rural local route in the Statewide Functional Classification System.
The paved secondary road serves a rural area of northeast Duplin County (see Figure 1). The
land use is predominately wooded and swampy in the immediate vicinity of the bridge.
Near the bridge, SR 1519 has a 17 foot pavement width with eight foot shoulders (see Figure
2). The roadway approaches are flat on each side of the bridge. The horizontal alignment is
tangent at the bridge with a 1°00' curve approximately 530 feet from the bridge to the west.
The east approach is tangent for a'distance of about 1600 feet from the bridge. The roadway
is situated about 18 feet above the creek bed.
The projected traffic volume is 400 Vehicles Per Day (VPD) for 1995 and 600 VPD for the
design year 2015. The volumes include 1 % truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 2% dual-tired
vehicles (DT). The speed limit is not posted; therefore, it is assumed to be 55 MPH.
The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was built in 1959. The superstructure consists of a timber
floor on steel girder/timber joists/steel floor beam system, and the substructure consists of
timber bents, abutments, and piles.
The overall length of the bridge is 161 feet. Clear roadway width is 19.1 feet. The posted
weight limit is seven tons for all vehicles.
Bridge No. 417 has a sufficiency rating of 18.5, compared to a rating of 100 for a new
structure.
No accidents were reported on Bridge No. 417 during the period from January 1, 1989 to
December 31, 1991.
Three school buses cross the bridge twice a day.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives were studied for replacing Bridge No. 417. Each alternate consists of a
bridge 175 feet long with a clear roadway width of 26 feet. This structure width will
accommodate a 22 foot travelway with two foot shoulders. The approach roadway should
consist of a 22 foot travelway with six foot usable shoulders.
The alternates studied are shown in Figure 2 and are as follows:
Alternate 1: (Recommended) involves replacing the bridge along the existing roadway
alignment. Traffic will be detoured during construction along existing roads as shown in
Figure 1.
Alternate 2: involves replacing the bridge along the existing roadway alignment. A temporary
on-site detour will be provided during construction on the north (upstream) side of the existing
structure. The temporary detour will consist of an 85 foot length, 24 foot clear roadway width,
and should be located approximately 35 feet from the existing structure. A design speed of
50 mph will be provided for the detour.
The 'do-nothing' alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1519.
2
The Division Office recommends closing the bridge and traffic be detoured along existing
roads during construction (see Figure 1).
The Duplin County School Transportation Supervisor has no objections to Bridge No. 417
being closed during the construction period.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that
rehabilitation of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternatives studied, based on current prices, are as follows:
Recommended
Alternate 1
Structural Removal $ 15,375
Structure 222,950
Roadway Approaches 24,240
Detour Structure and Approaches -
Miscellaneous & Mobilization 47,435
Engineering & Contingencies 40,000
Right-of-Way/Construction Easements/Utilities 24,500
TOTAL $ 374,500
VI. TRAFFIC DETOUR
Alternate 2
$ 15,375
222,950
24,240
122,960
74,475
65,000
26.450
$ 551,450
The Division Engineer concurs that traffic can be detoured on existing roads during the
construction period. A nine month road closure period Is anticipated. The detour roadway
and bridges are adequate to accommodate affected traffic during the construction period.
Provision of an on-site detour is not justifiable due to its excessive cost and the availability of
a suitable detour route. A road user analysis was performed based on 400 vpd and an
average of 4.3 miles of indirectional travel. The cost of additional travel would be
approximately $141,300 during the nine month construction period. The estimated cost of
providing an on-site detour is $175,950, resulting in a benefit-cost ratio of 0.80. This ratio
indicates it is not justifiable to maintain traffic on-site during the construction period.
The Division Office recommends that this bridge be constructed in the same contract as
project B-2133 (see Figure 1). Project B-2550 should be constructed first because of the
lower weight limit, and the detour route would use B-2133. When construction is complete on
B-2550 then construct project B-2133 with traffic detoured over the new B-2550 bridge.
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 417 will be replaced at its existing location with a new structure having a length of
approximately 175 feet. Minor improvements to the existing approaches will be necessary for
3
a distance of about 200 feet on each side of the bridge. Traffic will be detoured on existing
roads during the approximate nine month construction period as shown in Figure 1. The
Division Engineer concurs with this recommended alternate.
A 22 foot pavement with 6 foot usable shoulders will be provided on the approaches. A 26
foot clear roadway width is recommended on the replacement structure in accordance with the
current NCDOT Bridge Policy. This will provide a 22 foot travelway with two foot shoulders
across the structure. The design speed is 60 MPH.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, the new structure is recommended to have a length
of approximately 175 feet. It is anticipated that the elevation of the new structure will be
approximately the same as the existing bridge. The length and height may be increased or
decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by further hydrologic
studies.
VIII. NATURAL RESOURCES
A biologist visited the project site southwest of Albertson, in Duplin County, NC on July 2,
1992 to verify documented Information and gather field data for a thorough assessment of
potential impacts incurred by the bridge replacement proposed. SR 1519 crosses the
Northeast Cape Fear River at a point where the river curves slightly to the southwest in one of
its many meanders through a wide bottomland. The general topography is level, with only
about 20 feet separating ridgetops from bottomlands, and the road in the project area
basically connects road approaches on two opposing ridges. From the south, the existing
bridge crosses the Northeast Cape Fear River at N 79 deg E, roughly at right angle to the river
and forming four quadrants.
This investigation examined the vegetation and other conditions surrounding the highway
bridge in order to (1) search for protected plant and animal species; (2) identify unique or
prime-quality communities, (3) describe the current vegetation, and associated wildlife
habitats; (4) delineate wetlands; and (5) provide information to minimize any adverse
environmental effects of the proposed bridge replacement project.
Methods
The project area was a circular plot with a radius of 300 feet. 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. 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, Miller, and Beers 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 distances were determined by measurements taken on aerial photographs, but
all other measurements were developed from on-site reconnaissance.
4
V
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 special concern.
Aquatic system features were noted at three locations on the site: at the bridge and 100 ft
upstream and downstream of the existing structure. Available documentation of water quality
was reviewed (NCDEM 1989a, 1989b, 1991). Wetland determinations followed procedures
described by the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Lab. 1987).
Biotic Communities
Plant Communities
One plant community occurs in the study area, Cypress-Gum Swamp (Blackwater Subtype).
Compared to forest community groupings of the Society of American Foresters (1967), the
Cypress-Gum Swamp is most similar to Type 100, Pondcypress. Within Duplin County as a
whole, the Cypress-Gum Swamp community occupies 75,028 acres, 26 percent of the forest
cover of Duplin County and 14 percent of the total land in the county (Johnson 1990). No
aquatic plants were observed in or along the river, and no aquatic community is discussed.
The Cypress-Gum Swamp community occurs on bottomland sites that qualify as wetland.
This community is often flooded in winter and early spring, and it episodically floods during
the.growing season after heavy rainfall. Plants of this community must tolerate long
hydroperiods, a fact that limits species diversity. Heavily-decayed stumps measuring over four
feet across and the age of the current stand (67 years) indicate that this stand was logged
about 1925. Judging from the size of the stumps the stand could have been virgin at that
time. The current stand has regenerated and developed very well into an excellent-quality
stand.
The upper canopy contains pondcypress (Taxodium ascendens), sweetgum (Uguidambar
s raciflua , laurel oak (Quercus laurifoliaswamp blackgum (Nyssa biflora), and a few
swamp cottonwood (Populus heterophylla). Numerous cypress knees between two and three
feet tall occur. Although most sweetgums measure about 19-inches dbh, the largest one
measures 26-inches dbh. This tree is about 110 feet tall. The largest pondcypresses
measure about 22-inches dbh and 100 feet tall. The lower canopy contains red maple Acer
rubrum , American elm (Ulmus americana), and Carolina ash (Fraxinus caroliniana).
Pondcypress and swamp blackgum were somewhat more numerous near the channel, and
sweetgum was more abundant upslope from the channel, where drainage is improved. In
addition, the hydroperiod upstream of the bridge is probably somewhat longer, as evidenced
by the higher proportion of pondcypress and swamp blackgum. The causeway possibly
restricts drainage. Dominance of the canopy averages 140 fe/acre.
The shrub layer contains only Virginia willow (Itea virginica), viburnum (Viburnum nudum),
and buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis). Upstream of the bridge, foliar cover of the
ground layer is only about 5 percent, owing to the long hydroperiod. Lizard's tail Saururus
cemuus , giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), pennywort (Hydrocotyle sp.), and netted
5
chainfem (Woodwardia areolata) occur at low density. On drier microsites, like rotten stumps
and tree bases, climbing hydrangea (Decumaria barbara), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica),
poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicand, greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), touch-me-not (Impatiens
ca ensis , trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), and American elm (Ulmus americana)
seedlings completely cover the ground. About 150 feet upslope from the main channel, where
drainage is superior, the ground layer also contains violet iota sp.) and fall panic grass
Panicum sp.). Downstream of the bridge these same ground-layer species occur, but they
are more abundant. Foliar cover averages 50 percent, and the ground is no less covered
than drier microsites.
Wildlife (General
Except for a small cleared area immediately surrounding the bridge structure, the entire study
area is forested as described in the plant communities section above. An old firepit,
discarded bait bucket, and assorted trash give evidence of fishing activity immediately around
the bridge and along footpaths to the southeast. Mussel Corbicula fluminea shells scattered
on the southeast riverbank suggest the likelihood of raccoon (Procyon lotor foraging activity.
Hardwood bottomlands such as occur here are typically the most productive terrestrial
environments for wildlife because they concentrate and juxtapose water, forage, and shelter
requisites. In the moist transition zones between river and uplands, amphibian and reptile
species are typically abundant. Small mammals will occupy the area during drier periods.
Larger mammals, such as white-tail deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and Black bear Ursus
americanus) may traverse the habitat but are likely to find conditions too wet for bedding or
denning, and browse for deer is notably lacking.
Among avian species, the prothonotary warbler (Prothonotaria citrea would probably be most
characteristic of this habitat, representing a group of birds that limit their breeding habitat to
swamps, river bottoms, and other low-lying, frequently flooded areas. All of the warbler's life
requisites (running or standing water, sparse shrub layer in Intermediate to mature forest
successional stages, and cavities in snags, stumps and decayed cypress knees) can be
found here. In fact, a decaying snag stands just north of the bridge and a cavity-riddled
stump is just south. While this site is probably too wet for Pileated Woodpeckers (Dryocopus
ileatus , other woodpeckers and cavity nesting birds are likely to inhabit the surrounding
forest. Given the extent of contiguous bottomland forest surrounding the site, forest interior
species will find the area highly suitable for breeding.
Physical Resourrces
Soil
Geologically, the entire project lies on the Peedee Formation, Cretaceous-aged sediments of
sand, clayey-sand, and clay in the Coastal Plain physiographic region (Brown 1985). All soil
within the project area is Johnston Loam, a very poorly drained hydric soil, 'with high water
table and very slow runoff that is 'subject to frequent overflow' (Goldston 1958).
6

Water
The Northeast Cape Fear River, a black water river, is part of the larger Cape Fear River
System and arises in northwestern Duplin County, about two miles south of Mount Olive. It
flows southeasterly, becoming parts of the Duplin-Wayne and New Hanover-Pender County
lines, before joining the Cape Fear River at Wilmington.
The classification of the waters here is C-SW, indicating that these are swamp waters suitable
for fish propagation and agricultural uses but not for human consumption (NCDEM 1989b). At
a B-MAN site on NC 11 approximately three miles downriver, a Fair rating was determined in
1986 (NCDEM 1989a, 1991). Currently, the presence of freshwater mussels observed on site
supports the assessment that these waters are in fair condition.
Characteristics observed on site and shown in Table 1 reflect the fact that the bridge connects
two causeways across the swampy floodplain in an area where the river's gradient is
essentially flat.
Table 1. Characteristics Observed At Northeast Cape Fear River Crossing.
Observation Point T Upstream Existing Downstream
Substrate Mud
Current Flow Sluggish
Channel Width (ft) 40.0 48.0 25.0
Bank Height (ft) 1.0 2.0 1.0
Water Depth (ft) 5.0+
Water Color Black
Water Odor None
Aquatic Vegetation None
Adjacent Vegetation Hardwoods Weeds Hardwoods.
Wetlands
Associated Broad Floodplain To Banks Broad Floodplain
Jurisdictional Topics
Wetlands
Widening considerably about two miles above the project area, the bottomland along this
section of the Northeast Cape Fear River is generally about one-half mile wide. Thus, in the
project area the bottomland is crossed on a long causeway raised about eight feet. Although
in many places the river is divided into several channels, producing a braided drainage
pattern, in the project area only one main channel occurs, and the bridge proposed for
replacement spans the actual channel.
7
d
As noted in the vegetation discussion, the bottomland is dominated by a Cypress-Gum stand
approximately 67 years old that still includes heavily-decayed stumps measuring over four feet
across. Judging from the size of the stumps, the stand could have been virgin when it was
logged sometime around 1925, but the current stand has regenerated and developed into a
high quality stand. All around the bridge site, the forested floodplain generally exhibits a
sparse understory with some cane and other hydric species occurring in scattered patches.
As noted above, the soil everywhere except the causeway is Johnston loam, which is included
on the hydric soils list. Munsell soil color observed on site is 2.5Y 2/0. When examined, the
soil in the area surrounding the causeway was saturated to within a foot of the surface.
Upstream of the bridge, overland flow is quite evident, with ponding in evidence.
Downstream, numerous sloughs and wet depressions occur, and the understory is better
developed due to slightly drier conditions. Overall, the evidence of long-term inundation is
compelling.
res of wetlands by slightly widening the
As proposed, the project will fill approximat raDDroac'hes.
existing causewav for the aroaosed wideneal 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 seq). North Carolina laws
are also designed to protect certain plants and animals where statewide populations are in
decline.
Federally Listed Species:
The US Fish and Wildlife Service has identified the federally listed species shown in Table 2.
Habitat requirements and available records concerning these species have been reviewed,
and conditions at the bridge site have been examined in light of species requirements. More
specifically, following Table 2, the investigators have evaluated whether habitat exists in the
project impact area for federally-listed species in this county and, if existing, whether habitat is
being used by the species.
8

Table 2. Federally Listed Species Potentially Occurring in Duplin County.
Species Status* Distribution
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis E Eastern NC
*E= ondangorod; T= throatonod; CH= critical habitat dotorminod; P= proposed; SA=status duo to
similarity of appoaranco to another spocios.
Red-cockaded woodpecker icoides borealis
Red-cockaded woodpecker 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.' Although some
colonies may be found in pine stands where midstory hardwood encroachment has occurred,
this situation is relatively rare.
The description of plant communities above should make it obvious that suitable habitat does
not occur in the project area. No colonies were observed on the site, and no impacts to the
red-cockaded woodpecker will occur as a result of the proposed project.
State Listed Species:
According to Steve Hull, of the NC Natural Heritage program, no state listed species have
been recorded in the project area. In the field no evidence was found to suggest the
presence or likely occurrence of state-protected wildlife species, and no threatened,
endangered, or special concern plants were observed. All plants encountered are common
species. No adverse impact to plant populations is anticipated from this project, since
adequate populations exist outside the project area.
Unique and/or Prime-Ouality Habitat. The Cypress--Gum community cannot be considered
unique, since it occupies 26 percent of the forest cover and 14 percent of all land in Duplin
County (Johnson 1990). Thus, the proposed project will not impact unique habitat. The
project area does, however, contain an excellent-quality second-growth stand. But if (1) no
vehicle traffic is allowed in the bottomland, (2) minimal cutting of vegetation occurs, and (3)
the drainage is not restricted, no adverse impact should occur.
9

Impacts
Alternatives being considered include: (1) road closure and rebuild in place and (2) an on-site
detour and rebuild in place. The proposed project will replace an existing bridge with a
structure approximately the same size at the same location. Owing to the similarity of bridge
sizes, no additional clearing of forest cover will be necessary to replace the bridge itself;
therefore no significant impact to forest cover will result from replacing the bridge itself.
However, accommodating traffic during construction with an on-site detour (Alternative 2)
could cause significant short-term impact. Since the road is elevated on a causeway about
eight feet above the bottomland, an on-site detour would require constructing additional
causeway. A strip of cypress-gum forest at least fifty feet wide and several hundred feet long
would be removed to accommodate the detour and construction activity. Such causeway
construction would require filling wetland, temporarily, which could affect the natural hydrology
and hydroperiod of the bottomland. If drainage was blocked or restricted by the temporary
causeway, the longer hydroperiod could adversely affect the health and general vigor of the
bottomland ecosystem. Since we do not understand the micro-drainage patterns of this
intermittently flooded bottomland, blockage or restriction anywhere within the bottomland
could cause serious impact, especially in an ecosystem with subtle relief where drainage is
extremely important. Even creating small permanent ruts with vehicles could provide
significant adverse impact. Without question, an on-site detour could be risky. Therefore,
Alternate 1 is the preferred alternate so environmental impacts will be limited to the
construction of the replacement bridge.
If, however, traffic is accommodated by a road closing and off-site detour, then the
environmental problems cited above would be largely avoided. Wildlife habitat would not be
altered, and the hydrology of the area would remain as it is.
Accelerated soil erosion is always a concern when constructing around streams. Erosion
contributes to soil loss, but equally importantly, erosion sediments are deposited downstream.
In sufficient quantities, these deposits clog and restrict drainage and smother aquatic
organisms, especially bottom-dwelling and bottom-reproducing species. But soil erosion is
largely avoidable, if appropriate measures, consistent with current Best Management
Practices, are taken to control erosion during construction.
Owing to the wide floodplain, where integrity of the current micro-drainage patterns is
extremely important to continued ecosystem vigor, vehicle traffic in the bottomland itself must
be avoided. Traffic on these fragile soils can compact the soil and create small ruts that
impound areas upslope. Such impoundments restrict the drainage and increase the
hydroperiod, effects that endanger the general health of the ecosystem.
As proposed, the project will fill approximately 0.06 acres of wetlands by slightly widening the
existing causeway for the proposed widened approaches.
Permit Coordination
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.O.E. 1344), a
permit will be required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged or
fill material into 'Waters of the United States.'
10
Since the subject project is classified as a categorical exclusion and since less than one acre
of wetlands will be impacted by the project, it is likely that this project will be subject to the
Nationwide Permit Provisions of 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23. This permit authorizes any activities,
work and discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in
whole or in part, by another federal agency and that the activity is 'categorically excluded'
from environmental documentation because it is included within a category of actions which
neither individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment. However,
final permit decisions are left to the discretionary authority of the United States Army Corps of
Engineers.
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the NC Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources, 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.
Compensatory mitigation is not required under a Nationwide Permit. 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.
Literature Cited
Belanger, R. P. and R. L Anderson. 1989. A guide for visually assessing crown densities of
loblolly and shortleaf pines. USDA, For. Serv., Southeast. For. Expt. Sta. Res. Note SE-352.
Pp. 2.
Brown, P. M. 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina. N. C. Geol. Survey, Dept. of Natl. Res.
and Comm. Dev., Raleigh.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Tech.
Rep. Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Expt. Sta., Vicksburg, MS. Pp. 100, appendices.
Goldston, E. F. 1958. Soil Survey, Duplin County, North Carolina. U.S. Govt Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 75 p.
Husch, B., C. 1. Miller, and T. W. Beers. 1972. Forest Mensuration. The Ronald Press Company,
NY. Pp. 410.
Johnson, T. G. 1990. Forest Statistics for the Southern Coastal Plain of North Carolina, 1990.
USDA, Dept. of Agric., US For. Serv., Southeast. For. Expt. Sta. Res. But. SE-111. Pp. 52.
NCDEM. 1989a. 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. 1989b. Classifications and water quality standards assigned to the waters of the
Cape Fear River Basin. NC Dept. Envir. Health, and Nat. Res.: Raleigh, North Carolina.
11
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 Rec., N. C. Dept.
of Environ., Health, and Natl. Res., Raleigh. Pp. 325.
Society of American Foresters. 1967. Forest Cover Types of North America (Exclusive of
Mexico). Soc. of Amer. For., Washington, DC. Pp. 67.
Wilson, R. L. 1976. Elementary Forest Surveying and Mapping. State Univ. Book Stores, Inc.,
Corvallis. Pp. 183
IX. 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 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 adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right of way acquisition will be
limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of
national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
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 area of potential effect (APE) was surveyed and is shown on Figure 2. The bridge, built
in 1959, is the only structure located within the APE.
12
Since there are no properties either listed on or eligible for the National Register within the
APE, no further compliance with Section 106 is required.
The State Historic Preservation Officer will be given an opportunity to 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 the bridge is to be replaced in its present location, the project is exempt from the
Farmland Protection Policy Act.
The project is located within the Southern Coastal Plain Air Quality Control 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 Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 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 Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 770 and 772 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 revealed
no underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Duplin 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. Any shift in the alignment
would result in a crossing of about the same magnitude. The alignment of the project is
perpendicular to 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.
13
• 's 1306. ' - 3 \
-%: 1560
Outlaws Bridge
h 1562 q 4? 1539
1306•• .4 Q N' q
1-213 - 1531 1539
n Piney Grove
1509 0 ;-" 1532 Church 1540
c ?J` 815
903 1544
Herrings AIb t
.6 /
Cr
d er son 1544
ossroa
s
1306 1531 a. Church .:?`
1.0
8
2
1.0 b .
y r_. 1539
1541
9" a Albertson °

1306 1501
y 1543
?-
`
J
o
rb ttnavs 1545
?0 1519 rl4
- 1.5 15
1519 ; \? V 1564 O
b : w 1545 -\ 0 1543 1541

1306 ` b • :?r`, 1546 1546 1 2 v j? f \.\ 1
BRIDGE NO. 417 !
501
o
1500 '
/ 1566 : :
1557 A
111 1556
903 1546 f
•? 1
f?
h Bethany 9 .1 1553 1546
Ch.
1555}' - _ 1552
?J
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
ITOATU CAIIOLINA DIIPAIITILUNT OF
3 TIIANOPORTATIOIr
DIVIOIOU 07 MQnWAT0
PLAIrMUG AND IZIMUONU13NTAL
DAAItCU
a
BRIDGE NO. 417
DUPLIN COUNTY
B-2550
592 Q ni i FIG. 1
BRIDGE NO. 417
DUPUN COUNTY
B-2550
LGOIdNG EAST
SIDE VIEW
FIGURE 3
YLL'r-:(/
DUPLIN COUNTY
ZONE X
OUTLAY/ l
i a=r BRIDGE ii
ZONE
ZONE A
:;?1 ?: ?}::f''r:y.''r.::?::.:%'':, // .';?; '.• ;:tip' ..
:?; ::; ?;i is ;:•. r? ::?;?:? _.
1007
L43D
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
ti:X:
r ISIS {? ??''? <{?
If PLESANT GROVE
Coo
e?
11
'J
j
FALBEERTSON
{I
r/
!r
n
rr
B-2550 ,I
BRIDGE NO. 417.. ZONE A
o 11 ...

Isis
FIGURE 4
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
TO: Mr. L. J. Ward, PE
Manager, Planning & Environmental Branch
ATTENTION: Jay Bissett
FROM: J. E. Blair, E
Division Construction Engineer
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 417 on SR 1519
in Duplin County - B-2550
I have been asked by Mr. Keith Lewis with DSA Design to
provide written comments on the subject bridge replacement.
I see no problem with closing the road during construction,
and providing an off site detour along existing roads.
I also recommend the contract for replacement of this bridge
include the replacement of Bridge Nos. 130 and 132 on SR 1501
(B-2133) with the project phasing requiring B72550 to be
completed and opened to traffic before beginning work on
B-2133.
If there are any questions, please advise.
JEB/fs
STATt
{
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ?V15?0N OF
Q
124 Division Drive ?,? H1G1?wA .Z?
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401 RES?P?
September 2, 1992
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
w.
STATE
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
July 16, 1992
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Section 106 Consultation on Consultant
Bridge Projects
Dear Mr. Graf:
Jul 20 1992
DIVISIO,Y OF
GH
wA yS ?
?RFSE,4RCY`?F?+
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of June 15, 1992, concerning twenty-two bridge replacement
projects.
On June 8, 1992, Robin Stancil of our staff met with North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) staff and project consultants for a meeting concerning the bridge
replacements. NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the
meeting and for our use afterwards. Based upon our review of the photographs and the
information discussed at the meeting, our preliminary comments regarding these bridge
replacements are attached for each project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
concerns.
Our comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance
with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator,
at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
Attachments
cc: L. J. Ward 109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
B. Church
T. Padgett

Replace Bridge No. 417 on SR 1519 over Cape Fear River,
Duplin County, B-2550, ER 92-8539
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
We are unable to assess the effects of the proposed bridge replacement upon
archaeological resources without a map indicating the location of the proposed
project. Please forward a map and a project description as soon as possible so
that we may complete our review.
July 16, 1992
.i
?`3 S
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
September 11, 1992
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge #417, B-2550, Duplin County, ER
92-8539
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of August 19, 1992, concerning the above project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: L. J. Ward
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807