19940918 Ver 1_Complete File_19941004

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
TO REF. NO. OR. ROOM, BLDG.
FROM: R.F. NO. OR ROOM,.-BLDG.
ACTION
?NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR-YOUR,APPROVAL.
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INAOR"TION
? PLEASE ANSWER
? FOR YOUR COMME TS
?'r'PREPARE REPLY
I
4
f
FOR
I
Y SIGN
ATURE ? SIGNATURE
-? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

u
L OCT - 41994

WETLANDS GROUP
WATER UALITY SECTION

f
a1 q 9
1 ?
d??p
®1 /SSue
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
September 26, 1994
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890 ¢
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402 Q?
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch WTLR•
Dear Sir: Subject: Pender County, Replace Bridge No. 147 over
Doctor's Creek on SR 1304, Federal-Aid Project
BRZ-1304(1), State Project 8.2271001, T.I.P. No.
B-2601.
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 not anticipate requesting an individual
permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November
22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of
Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General 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.
If you have any questions or need additional information,
please call Robin Little at 733-3141.
Sincerely, ,
4?B 5(0' nn
Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone] P

z
BJO/rml
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Rudolph Scheiner, COE-Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NC DEHNR DEM
Mr. John Parker, NC DEHNR DCM/Permit Coord.
w/out attachment
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, PE, State Highway Engineer- Design
Mr. A.L. Hankins, PE, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith, Jr., PE, Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. D. J. Bowers, PE, Division 3 Engineer
Mr. John L. Williams, Project Planning Engineer
Mr. Davis Moore, P & E Branch
F

b
1129
?J
Pte'
Q
•I
1136
1.3 ?
'0
C'?ePlr 1 136
1170
IS O
Safe
1156
a ?3,3 1
1155
r
Lo
? 1176
Creek
1305
•6
PENDER 1302 1301
COUNTY

¦ cb' 1
w
WA

.8'
t ¦
DUPLIN
COUNTY
/b?
!1183
.2.0
1.0
.9
?.
1158
J
00,
\Jir IS ` 1159 1
J J ? \J
SAMPSON\
COUNTY
? J
.`

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
Functional Classification - Rural Local Route
PREPARED BY: Julie A. Hunkins
DATE: 7-15-93
BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
B-2600 & B-2601
TRAFFIC: CURRENT (1993) 100 VPD; DESIGN YEAR (2013) 200 VPD
TTST 1 % DT 2 %
APPROACH ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION:
TRAVELWAY: 20 FEET
SHOULDERS: 4-foot useable
STRUCTURES:
BRIDGE NO. 146 (B-2600)
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 104 FEET; WIDTH 17.1 FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH 130 FEET; WIDTH 24 FEET
DETOUR STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH 100 FEET; WIDTH FEET
BRIDGE NO. 147 (B-2601)
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 35 FEET; WIDTH 17.2 FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
CULVERT - 1 @ 12'x6' RCBC
DETOUR STRUCTURE:
PIPE - SIZE 2 @ 72"
COSTS:
B-2600 B-2601
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING
AND CONTINGENCIES) ............. $ 300,000 100,000

RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION,
UTILITIES, AND ACQUISITION) .... $ 15,000 15,000

FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS ...................... $ N/A N/A

TOTAL COST....... ................. $ 315,000 115,000
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST .................... $
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST .................... $
SUB TOTAL .......................... $
PRIOR YEARS COST ........................ $
TIP TOTAL COST ........................... $
250, 000 175, 000

15, 000 15, 000

265 ,000 190, 000

0 0

265, 000 190, 000
r '
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE 5-25-93
REVISION DATE 7-15-93
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING
PLANNING X
DESIGN
TIP PROJECT B-2600 and B-2601
STATE PROJECT 8.2270901 & 8.2271001
F.A. PROJECT BRZ-1304(1) & BRZ-1304(2)
DIVISION 3
COUNTY Pender-Duplin
ROUTE SR 1304 / SR 1157
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: Replace Obsolete Bridge
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Replace Bridge No.'s 146 and 147 over
Doctors Creek and Overflow on SR 1304 / SR 1157 in Pender and
Duplin Counties
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE X
2. EXISTING LOCATION - ON-SITE DETOUR
3. RELOCATION
4. OTHER
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ($) 1 M
4
Due to the low traffic volume on SR 1.304/SR 1157 and the
availability of a suitable detour route, traffic is proposed
to be detoured off-site during the construction period. The
division engineer concurs with road closure during the
construction period.
The Hydraulics Unit recommends the replacing Bridge
No. 146 with a bridge 130 feet long. For the replacement
structure for Bridge No. 147, the Hydraulics Unit recommends
a single barrel 12' x 6' foot reinforced concrete box
culvert. The Department of Environmental Management is
satisfied with the proposed structure recommendations.
Coordination with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) following the scoping meeting indicated
the two proposed replacement structures are suitable.
However, the NCWRC did request that consideration be given to
providing a natural channel bottom or extra depth culvert at
Bridge No. 147 for fish species.
Since the two bridge replacement projects will be
combined, either (1) the road will be closed during
construction of the replacement structures, or (2) traffic
will be maintained on-site and one temporary detour alignment
would be used to run around both structures. Since the
existing alignment is good in the project area and due to the
presence of wetlands at the site, replacement of the bridges
at their existing locations was determined to be the only
prudent replacement scheme.
The estimated cost for B-2600, which replaces the bridge
with a bridge at its existing location and detours traffic
off-site during construction, is $ 300,000, excluding
right of way. The estimated cost for B-2601, which replaces
the bridge with a culvert at the existing location and
detours traffic off-site during construction, is $ 100,000,
excluding right of way. The cost of providing an on-site
detour around the two bridges during construction is
estimated to be approximately $ 350,000, excluding right of
way.
Right of way costs contained in the 1993-1999
Transportation Improvement Program are considered reasonable
costs associated with the replacement of these two
structures.
JH/wgc
Attachment

D
STATE OF NoPTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATIO
JAMES B. HUNT. JR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
July 15, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: Julie A. Hunkins, P. E. W
Project Planning Enginee
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 146 on
SR 1304 / SR 1157 Over Doctors Creek in
Pender/Duplin Counties, TIP B-2600,
State Project 8.2270901,
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1304(1)
and
Replacement of Bridge No. 147 on SR 1304
Over Doctors Creek (Overflow) in Pender
County, TIP B-2601, State Project 8.2271001;
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1304(2)
SAM HUNT
SECRETARY
A scoping meeting for the subject bridge replacement
projects was held on June 30, 1993 at 10:00 AM in Room 470 of
the Planning and Environmental Branch.
List of those who attended is as follows:
Brian Williford
Annette Mortick
Eric Galamb
Danny Rogers
Ray Moore
Don Sellers
Wendi Oglesby
Kathy Lassiter
Glenda Gibson
Tom Tarleton
Julie Hunkins
John Williams
Galen Cail
Hydraulics Unit
Hydraulics Unit
Division of Environmental Management
Program Development Branch
Structure Design Unit
Right of Way Branch
Traffic Control Unit
Roadway Design Unit
Roadway Design Unit
Location & Surveys Unit
Planning & Environmental Branch
Planning & Environmental Branch
Planning & Environmental Branch
Attached is a revised scoping sheet which includes
additional information provided at the scoping meeting.
Since these two projects are in proximity to one
another, the two bridge replacement projects will be combined
during planning, design, and construction.
F ! . {
JU! 19 1993

.,.
r N. C."UEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
TO:
^ R
OR ROOM, BLDG.
EF. NO.
?? ie-
akrAb
i '
V •
DeW IQ
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM. BLDG.
Ld fe, o..,-As
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
b
kQ5
`?. 1 129

1.5 41
llg?
DUPLIN
COUNTY

?lb
b f
1128 1183

129
co 1
C? 1157 {Ors
iJ . 1158 i'fie?

9 1.0

1158
qo 1,?\r IS ` 1159 o 100,

SAMPSO l
N \? l
\a ? ?

%
6% \?,
COUNTY w 0
?
f
l J
?

1136
7.3.
??l
1156
v
? ? creek
2.3
. 3r
PENDER 1302 1301
COUNTY
?o
1136
I
i
1170
Safe
f
/ a _
1155
Lo
1176
r
•
,°p. 1305
•6.
1?

0 . 1
w.
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
Functional Classification - Rural Local Route
PREPARED BY: John L. Williams
DATE: 5-25-93
it _ i&. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP 15
TO- REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
Gnl rz mom-
4i?L tC-A - hE LK
-FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.

ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
0
,r
a
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS SAM HUNT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 1?_ 346
May 27, 1993 ,jyN1993
C"i
"? WATER QV?`?-1TY --
N? Planning wranch
MEMORANDUM TO: DMr. EM Eric Gal a6th Floor
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheet for Bridge No.'s 146 and 147 on
SR 1304 in Pender-Duplin Counties over Doctor's Creek,
B-2600 and B-2601
Attached for your review and comments are the Scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A Scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for June 30, 1993 at 10:00 A. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call Julie Hunkins, P. E., Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
JH/plr
-lq-2 51vj
Attachment
os
O?

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE 5-25-93
REVISION DATE
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING
PLANNING
DESIGN
TIP PROJECT B-2600 and B-2601
STATE PROJECT
F.A. PROJECT
DIVISION
COUNTY Pender-Duplin
ROUTE SR 1304
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Project to replace Bridge No.'s 146 and
147 over Doctors Creek on SR 1304 (B-2600 and B-2601).
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE _
2. EXISTING LOCATION ON-SITE DETOUR
3. RELOCATION
4. OTHER
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ($) 1 M

BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
D ?
TRAFFIC: CURRENT O
0 VPD; DESIGN YEAR 2-00 VPD
TTST % DT %
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION:
TRAVELWIDTHS: FEET
SHOULDERS: FEET
STRUCTURES:
BRIDGE NO. 146 (B - 2600 )
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 104 FEET; WIDTH 17.1 FEET
PROPOSED STRU
BRIDGE -)LENGTH FEET; WIDTH FEET
CULVERT - LENGTH FEET; WIDTH FEET
DETOUR STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH
OR
FEET; WIDTH FEET
PIPE - SIZE INCHES
BRIDGE NO. 147 (B - 2601 ) QU ? s? ctC lk,."-
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 35 FEET; WIDTH 17.2 FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH FEET;
ULVERT LENGTH 17, FEET;
DETOUR STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH FEET;
OR
PIPE - SIZE INCHES
WIDTH FEET
WIDTH_ FEET
WIDTH FEET
B-2600 B-2601
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING
AND CONTINGENCIES) ..... $
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION,
UTILITIES, AND
ACQUISITION) ........... $
FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS ......................$
TOTAL COST' .......................... $
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST .................... $ 250, 000 175 ,000

TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST .................... $ 15, 000 15 ,000

SUB TOTAL .............................. $ 265, 000 190 ,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ........................ $ 0 0
TIP TOTAL COST ........................... $ 265 ,000 190 ,000

I -
Ov'
Zlb ? ?vt a
4.1 11-4 i
r

i

3.2 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Short term impacts to water quality can be anticipated from construction-related
activities, which may increase sedimentation and turbidity. Impacts can be minimized by the use
of best management practices, including implementation of stringent erosion and sedimentation
control measures during construction.
Long term impacts to water resources are not expected as a result of proposed
improvements. The new bridge will maintain the present flow to protect stream integrity.
Increased runoff from roadway surfaces will be partially mitigated by providing for vegetated
road shoulders and limited use of ditching where ever possible.
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS - -
4.1 Waters of the United States
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3, in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters and wetlands will be impacted by project
construction. Approximately 0.30 ha (0.75 acres) for Alternative 1 of Palustrine forested
deciduous wetlands (see Cowardin et al. 1979) will be impacted (filled) with the current project
design.
Wetland communities were identified using the criteria specified in the 1987 "US Army
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual". For an area to be considered a "wetland",
the following three specifications must be meet; 1) presence of hydric soils (low soil chroma
values), 2) presence of hydrophytic vegetation, and 3) evidence of hydrology at or near the soil
surface for a portion (12.5 percent or greater duration) of the growing season.
-- 4. 1.1 Permits
Section 404 impacts to wetlands will occur. A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(A)23,
for impacts to surface waters of Doctors Creek, is likely to be applicable if the WRC certifies
that construction of this project will not adversely affect these waters. This permit authorizes
activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or in part, by
another Federal agency or department. That agency or department has determined that the
activity is categorically excluded from the environmental documentation, because it will neither
individually or cumulatively have a significant environmental effect.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 (1665)
Water Quality General Certification is also required prior to issuance of the Nationwide Permit.
4.1.2 Mitigation
Projects authorized under Nationwide Permits usually do not require compensatory
mitigation according to the 1989 Memorandum Agreement between the Environmental
6

Protection Agency and the Department of the Army. However, utilization of best management
practices (BMP's) is recommended in an effort to minimize impacts.
4.2 Protected Species
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species
Y
Species with federal classifications of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) are protected
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (1978, 1979, 1982, and 1988
Amendments). Candidate species do not receive protection under the Act, but are mentioned
due to potential vulnerability. The following feddrally protected species are listed for
Duplin-Pender Counties:
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) - T'
Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelvs coriacea) - E
Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kemni) - E
Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) - T
Green head turtle (Chelonia mydas) - T
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia) - E
American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana) - E
Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleki) - E
Seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus 12umilus) - T
Brief descriptions of these organisms characteristics and habitat requirements are
provided below.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Status: E
Farffly: Picidae
Listed: 10/13/70
This federally Endangered woodpecker is found in scattered locations throughout the
southeast. The bird measures 18 to 20 cm long with a wing span ranging from 35 to 38 cm. The
male has a small red spot on each side of the head. Both males and females show a black cap
and stripe on the side of the neck. The throat is also black while the cheeks and under parts are
white. Black and white horizontal stripes are visible on the back. Nesting habitat consists of
open pine stands (minimum age 60 years) or mixed pine/hardwood stands, (50 percent or more
pine). Longleaf pine (Rim alustris) is most commonly used, but other species of southern pine
are also acceptable.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat exists along the bridge replacement alternatives. Also, a review of
NC Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the subject project
7
study area. It can be concluded that project construction will have no impact on the
Red-cockaded woodpecker.
Piping plover ( haradrius melodus)
Status: T
Family: Charadriidae
Listed: 12/11/85
The Piping plover is a small, stocky shorebird resembling a sandpiper. The adults are 18
cm (7 inches) long, and have a wingspan of 38 cm (15 inches). Both sexes are similar in size
and color, upper parts are pale brownish, underparts are-white. Nesting occurs on beaches close
to dunes or in other shoreline habitats. Breeding birds on the North Carolina coast are mostly
found from the vicinity of Cape Lookout northward.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT .
No suitable breeding habitat exists along the bridge replacement alternatives. Also, a
review of NC Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the subject
project study area. It can be concluded that project construction will have ho impact on the
Piping plover.
Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea)
Status: E
Family: Dermochelidae
Listed: 6/2/70
The leatherback sea turtle is a large turtle with a barrel-shaped body, with leathery skin
and paddlelike, clawless appendages. The leatherback sea turtle lacks a hard shell and has five
to seven longitudinal ridges (keels) running the length of its back. Adults approach 2 m (6 ft) in
carpace length and average about 360 kg (8001bs). Leatherbacks nest on sandy, ocean-facing
beaches, usually with few rocks or coral and relatively deep near-shore approaches.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat exists along the bridge replacement alternatives. Also, a review of
NC Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the subject project
study area. It can be concluded that project construction will have no impact on the Leatherback
sea turtle.
Kemp's ridley sea turtle (LLg idochelys kepi)
Status: E
Family: Cheloniidae
Listed: 12/2/70
The Kemp's ridley sea turtle is a small turtle with a heart-shaped body, usually broad,
keeled carapace which is serrated behind the bridge. Adults approach 56 cm (22 inches) in
8
carapace length and average about 36 kg (80 lbs). The Kemp's ridley sea turtle inhabits shallow
coastal and estuarine waters.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat exists along the bridge replacement alternatives. Also, a review of
NC Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the subject project
study area. It can be concluded that project construction will have no impact on the Kemp's
ridley sea turtle.
Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta)
Status: T
Family: Cheloniidae
Listed: 7/28/78

The Loggerhead turtle is a large turtle with a large head with blunt jaws. Adults average
about 91 kg (200 lbs). The Loggerhead turtle inhabits a large range of marine, salt marshes, and
inshore areas.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat exists along the bridge replacement alternatives. Also, a review of
NC Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the subject project
study area. It can be concluded that project construction will have no impact on the Loggerhead
turtle.
Green head turtle (Chelonia mvdas)
Status: T
Family: Cheloniidae
Lis d: 7/28/78
The Green sea turtle is a large turtle which approaches 122 cm (4 ft) in length and
average about 200 kg (4401bs). The Green sea turtle inhabits shallow waters (except when
migrating) inside reefs, bays and inlets.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat exists along the bridge replacement alternatives. Also, a review of
NC Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the subject project
study area. It can be concluded that project construction will have no impact on the Green sea
turtle.
9
1
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asnerulaefolia)
Status:- E
Family: Primulaceae
Listed: 6/12/87
Rough-leaved loosestrife is a perennial herb that grows slender stems from a rhizome and
reaches heights of 3 to 6 decimeters. Whorls of 3 to 411eaves encircle the stem at intervals
beneath the showy yellow flowers. Flowering occurs from mid-May through June, with fruits
present from July through October. Habitat occurs in the ecotones or edges between longleaf
pine uplands and pond pine pocosins (areas of dense shrub and vine growth) usually on a wet,
peaty, poorly drained soil, on moist to seasonally saturated sands and on shallow organic soils
overlaying sand.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The scrub-shrub areas along the project offers suitable habitat for this species. Plant by
plant surveys along the scrub-shrub areas were conducted on May 2, 1994. No plants were
observed. Also, a review of NC Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this
species in the subject project study area. It can be concluded that construction of this project
will not impact this species.
American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana)
Status: E
Family: Scrophulariaceae
Listed: 10/29/92
American Chaffseed is a finely pubescent (to tomentose, unbranched) perennial herb
reaching 3-8 dm tall. The leaves are alternate, sessile, entire, elliptical-lanceolate (to
elliptic-oval) 2-5 cm long and approximately 1 cm wide. Flowering occurs in spring and fruits
in-early summer. Habitat is moist to dry sandy pinelands and oaklands; especially in seasonally
wet pine savannas and pine woodlands.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The woodlands areas along the project offers suitable habitat for this species. Plant by
plant surveys along the forested woodlands were conducted on May 2, 1994. No plants were
observed. Also, a review of NC Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this
species in the subject project study area. It can be concluded that construction of this project
will not impact this species.
Cooley's meadowrue-(Thalictrum coolevi)
Status: E
Family: Ranunculaceae
Listed: 2/7/89
10
Cooley's meadowrue is perennial herb which grows from an underground rhizome. Its
stems are usually 1 m in height, but sometimes grow as high as 2 m on recently burned sites.
The species' green leaflets are lance-shaped, and less than 2 cm long. 'Flowering occurs in mid-
to late June, and fruits mature in August or September. Habitat is moist to wet bogs and
savannahs. It grows along fireplow lines, roadside ditches, woodland clearings, and powerline
rights-of-way, and needs some type of disturbance to maintain its open habitat.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The urban/disturbed areas along the project offers suitable habitat for this species. Plant
by plant surveys along these areas and woodland clearings were conducted on May 2, 1994. No
plants were observed. Also, a review of NC Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records
of this species in the subject project study area. It can be concluded that construc`fion of this
project will not impact this species.
Seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus umilus)
Status: T
Family: Amaranthaceae
Listed: 4/7/93
Seabeach amaranth is an annual plant found on Atlantic ocean beaches. The stems are
fleshy and pink-red or reddish, with small rounded leaves that are 1.3 to 2.5 cm in diameter.
The leaves are clustered towards the tip of the stem, are normally a spinach-green color, and
have a small notch at the rounded tip. Flowers and fruits are relatively inconspicuous, borne in
clusters along the stem. Flowering can be from June until autumn. 'Seabeach amaranth occurs
on barrier island beaches, where its primary habitat consists of overwash flats at accreting ends
of islands and lower foredunes and upper strands of noneroding beaches.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat exists along the bridge replacement alternatives. Also, a review of
NC Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the subject project
study area. It can be concluded that project construction will have no impact on the Seabeach
amaranth.
11
e,
4.2.2 Federal Candidate S ep cies
There are twenty-two C2 federal candidate species listed for Duplin-Pender Counties.
The North Carolina status of these species is listed below.
Federal Candidate Species Duplin-Pender Counties
Scientific Name Common Name Habitat NC
Procambarus plumimanus Croatan crayfish Yes W2
Dionaea muscipula Venus flytrap Yes C-SC
Oxypolis tern ata Savanna cowbane Yes W1
orobolus teretifolius Wireleaf dropseed NO -° T
Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow No SC
Ammodramus henslowii Henslow's sparrow Yes SR
Fusconaia mason Atlantic pigtoe Yes T
Lampsilis cariosa Yellow lampmussel Yes T
Agrotis uchh lzi Pyxie moth Yes SR
Spartiniphaga carterae Carter's noctuid moth Yes SR
Carex chanmanii Chapman's sedge Yes C
Kalmia cuneata White-wicky No E-SC
Macbridea carolinian a Carolina bogmint Yes C
Oxypolis tern ata Savanna cowbane Yes W1
Parnassia caroliniana Carolina grass-of-parnassus Yes E
Plantago sparsiflora Pineland plantain Yes E
Rh chos ora thomei Thorne's beakrush Yes C
Solidago 12ulchra Carolina goldenrod Yes E
Soldago verna Spring-flowering goldenrod Yes E
Sporobolus teretifolius Wireleaf dropseed Yes T
Tc fgldia labra Smooth bog-asphodel ' Yes C
Trillium pusillum var. 12usillum. Carolina trillium Yes E
NC Status: SC, E, T, SF W1, W2 and C denote Special Concern, Endangered, Threatened,
Watch Category 1, Watch Category 2, and Significantly Rare Candidate, respectively.
Candidate 2 (C2) species are defined as taxa for which there is some evidence of
vulnerability, but for which there is not enough data to warrant a listing of Endangered,
Threatened, Proposed Endangered, or Proposed Threatened at this time. These species are
mentioned here for information purposes, should they become federally protected in the future.
Specific surveys for any of these species were not conducted, nor were these species observed
during the site visit.
12
r
4.2.3 State Protected Species
I
Plant or animal species which are on the state list as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or
Special Concern (SC) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered Species
Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202.
12 et seq.). NC Natural Heritage Program records indicate no known populations of the state
listed species occurring within 1.6 km (1 mile) of the liroject site.

13

REFERENCES
Beal, E.O. 1977. A Manual of Marsh and Aquatic Vascular Plants of North Carolina. The North
Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station.
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-79/31.
Y
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, Technical
Report Y-87-1, USACOEWES, Vicksburg, Miss.'
Gibbs, L.C. 1987. Weeds of the Southern United States. Univ.. of Georgia College of
Agriculture.
Lee, D.S., J.B. Funderburg, Jr. and M.K. Clark. 1982. A Distribution Survey of North Carolina
Mammals. Museum of Natural History, North Carolina
LeGrand, H.E. and S.P. Hall. 1993. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species
of North Carolina North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, J.R. Harrison, III, and J. Dermid. 1986. Amphibians
and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virgins The University of North Carolina Press.
Murie, O.J. 1975. A Field Guide to Animal Tracks. Houghton Miffin Co., Boston.
NCDNRCD. 1993. Classifications and Water Oualijy Standards Assigned to the Water of the
Cape Fear River Basin. Division of Environment Management, Raleigh, N.C..
Peterson, R.T. 1980. A Field Guide to the Birds. Houghton Miffin Co., Boston.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Jeulings. 1986. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of
- North Carolina Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina. Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, N.C.
SCS. 1959. Soil Survey of Duplin County, North Carolina. Soil Conservation Service.
SCS. 1990. Soil Survey of Pender County. North Carolina. Soil Conservation Service.
Weakley, A.S. 1993. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr.. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas. Virginia
and Maryland, The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, N.C.
14

A.
J
Date: 6/24/94
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-2601
State Project No. 8.2271001
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1304(1)
Pro.iect Description: (List project location and scope.
Attach location map.)
NCDOT will be replacing Bridge No. 147 on SR 1304
over Doctors Creek in Pender County. The bridge will be
replaced at the existing location and grade with a single
barrel 3.7-meter X 1.8-meter (12-foot X 6-foot)
reinforced concrete box culvert. This new section will
include a 6-meter (20-foot) travelway plus 1.2-meter (4-
foot) shoulders. Traffic will be maintained on secondary
roads during construction. This project (B-2601) will be
clustered with B-2600 due to proximity of the two
projects (see figure) to reduce the costs and increase
efficiency of construction.
NOTE: Refer to Section D, "Special Project Information,"
for list of ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS.
B. Purpose and Need: Bridge No. 147 has a sufficiency rating
of 26.4 out of 100.0 with a remaining life of less than
five years. The deck is only 5.5 meters (18 feet) wide.
NCDOT Bridge Policy calls for a bridge 7.2 meters (24
feet) wide. The bridge is presently posted at 8 metric
tons (9 tons) for single vehicles and 15 metric tons (17
tons) for truck-tractor semi-trailers. For these reasons
Bridge No. 147 needs to be replaced.
C. Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following improvements which
apply to the project:
Type II Improvements
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing,
restoration, rehabilitation, reconstruction, adding
shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g.,
parking, weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and
Reconstructing pavement (3R and 4R
improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding
through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge,
auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
1

w
Date: 6/24/94
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets,
and drainage pipes, including safety
treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than
one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement
projects including the installation of ramp
metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey
type barriers and pier protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or
upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation
and/or realignment h. Making minor roadway
realignment i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements
including removing hazards and flattening
slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and
motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety, hardware including
bridge rail retrofit
3] Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or
replacement or the construction of grade separation
to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing
bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no
red lead paint), scour repair, fender systems,
and minor structural improvements
d?. Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest
areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or
for joint or limited use of right-of-way, where the
proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.

2
Date: 6/24/94
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance
facilities in areas used predominantly for
industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing
zoning and located on or near a street with
adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and
support vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail
and bus buildings and ancillary facilities where
only minor amounts of additional land are required
and there is not a substantial increase in the
number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open
area consisting of passenger shelters, boarding
areas, kiosks and related street improvements) when
located in a commercial area or other high activity
center in which there is adequate street capacity
for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance
facilities in areas used predominantly for
industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing
zoning and where there is no significant noise
impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective
purposes, advance land acquisition loans under
section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a
particular parcel or a limited number of parcels.
These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE
only where the acquisition will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in
alignment for planned construction projects, which
may be required in the NEPA process. No project
development on such land may proceed until the NEPA
process has been completed.
D. Special Project Information: (Include ENVIRONMENTAL
COMMITMENTS)
Environmental Commitments:
1. All standard procedures and measures will be
implemented to avoid or minimize environmental
impacts.
2. Best Management Practices (BMP) including strict
erosion control measures will be implemented.
Date: 6/24/94
Estimated Costs:
Construction
Right of Way
$ 100,000
$ 5,000
Total
$ 105,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 100 VPD
Year 2015 - 200 VPD
Proposed Typical Roadway Section:
6-meter (20-foot) wide travelway plus 1.2-meter
(4-foot) shoulders. Note: shoulders will be 2..1 meters
(7 feet) wide if guardrail is needed.
Design Speed:
100 km/h (60 mph)
Functional Classification:
Rural Local Route
Division Office Comments:
The Division Office supports clustering B-2601 with
B-2600 due to the proximity of the two projects and the
resulting savings in mobilization costs.
Other Items:
A design exception may be required if the guardrail
extends into the curve at the west end.
A culvert was chosen during evaluation of alternatives
because it was shown not to effect the hydrology of the
area and because the proximity of the longer bridge
(Bridge No. 146) allows continued passage of fish and
wildlife.
E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved in the project, the
following evaluation must be completed. If the project
consists only of Type I improvements, the following checklist
does not need to be completed.
ECOLOGICAL
YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact ?
on any unique or important natural resource?
X

4

Date: 6/24/94
(2) Does the project involve habitat where
federally listed endangered or threatened
species may occur?
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
17 x
F-1 x
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the
amount of permanent and/or temporary ?
wetland taking less than one-third x
(1/3) of an acre AND have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland
takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require the use of x
U. S. Forest Service lands?
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water
resources be adversely impacted by F-1 X
proposed construction activities?
(7) Does the project involve waters classified
as Outstanding Water Resources (OWR) and/or x
High Quality Waters (HQW)?
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of
X
the United States in any of the designated F-1
mountain trout counties?
(9) Does the project involve any known
underground storage tanks (UST's) or
hazardous materials sites?
PERMITS AND COORDINATION
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA
county, will the project significantly
affect the coastal zone and/or any "Area
of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier
Resources Act resources?
F-1 X
YES NO
F1 x
F-1 x
5
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be
required?
Date: 6/24/94
x
y
aX
(13) Will the project result in the modification F-1
of any existing regulatory floodway?
(14) Will the project require any stream
relocations or channel changes?
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
1-1
X
X
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts
to planned growth or land use for the area?
(16) Will the project require the relocation of
any family or business?
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of
right of way, is the amount of right of way
acquisition considered minor?
(18) Will the project involve any changes in
access control?
(19) Will the project substantially alter the
usefulness and/or land use of adjacent
property?
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on
permanent local traffic patterns or
community cohesiveness?
(21) Is the project included in an approved
thoroughfare plan and/or Transportation
Improvement Program (and is, therefore, in
conformance with the Clean Air Act of
1990)?
X
F-1 X
X F-1
F-1 X
F-1 X
F-1 X
YES NO
X F-1
6
r
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an
increase in traffic volumes?
(23) Will traffic be maintained during
construction using existing roads, staged
construction, or on-site detours?
Date: 6/24/94
X
F-1 .
X F-1
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social,
economic, or environmental grounds F-1 X
concerning the project?
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal, ?
State, and local laws relating to the X
environmental aspects of the action?
CULTURAL RESOURCES
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on
properties eligible for or listed on the
National Register of Historic Places?
(27) Will the project require the use of
Section 4(f) resources (public parks,
recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl
refuges, historic sites, or historic
bridges, as defined in Section 4(f) of the
U. S. Department of Transportation Act of
1966)?
F-1 X
F-1 X
(28) Will the project involve construction in,
across, or adjacent to a river designated F-1 X
as a component of or proposed for inclusion
in the Natural System of Wild and Scenic
Rivers?
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable
Responses in Part E
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E
should be provided below. Additional supporting
documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
7
G.
CE Approval
Date: 6/24/94
TIP Project No. B-2601
State Project No. 8.2271001
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1304(1)
Project Description: (List project location and scope.
Attach location map.)
NCDOT will be replacing Bridge No. 147 on SR 1304
over Doctors Creek in Pender County. The bridge will be
replaced at the existing location and grade with a single
barrel 3.7-meter X 1.8-meter (12-foot X 6-foot)
reinforced concrete box culvert. This new section will
include a 6-meter (20-foot) travelway plus 1.2-meter (4-
foot) shoulders. Traffic will be maintained on secondary
roads during construction. This project (B-2601) will be
clustered with B-2600 due to proximity of the two
projects (see figure) to reduce the costs and increase
efficiency of construction.
NOTE: Refer to Section D, "Special Project Information,"
for list of ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
Approved:
yn-
q
Date
Z-2
Date
X TYPE II(A)
TYPE II(B)
r?
//??4 Manager
)*J Planning & Environmental Branch
Act Y,%
I
P r o/1 e c t
?-24-
Date Pro'ec

ning Unit Head
i 1 xwc?
laYining Engineer
For Type II(B) projects only:
Date Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
8
'o
3 • / Itl
00 a\
'• •4
4•:
Uw 1.5 41
Duplin County j 1132
? I ? i Bridge No. 146
Ift 00
CO 11129
-0
5
'w
7!S
FA•s .
LA \??1 N
°o
T4
Sampson County
t
G n
Pin&Qreen 4
S. A `M P
s.
2
Sa Iembur
. Autrvwtle 8 „ '
_ r
Rosebpro _ .
14k -11
b B-2600
b ??'• 1 156
1128 1183
ct)
1157
8 1158 % oGtOr?
.9 r1 1.0
'6
?1 R 1303!
`r s 1159
r ?
o Bridge No. 147
N
Lym:
uapu

C
AA

1 I`
Fe ?.
0
I ,t
\
5, ?A E R

I -? -?--1- STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
r
---------------------------
Pender County
1300
!-v,
\\
./ 1212 I O.
o?.
I
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
PENDER COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 147 ON SR 1304
OVER DOCTORS CREEK
B - 2601
0 km 1.6 km 3.2
F I
0 miles 1 miles 2

ail 16c,
roe
NATURAL SYSTEMS REPORT U
Replacement of Bridges # 146 and # 147
SR 1304/1157 and SR 1304
Pender-Duplin Counties, North Carolina
(B-2600)
(B-2601)
Prepared for:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
Prepared by:
Ecological Consultants
3403 Long Ridge Road
Durham, North Carolina 27703
June 1994

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Y
1.0 Introduction ..:.................................................. 1
1.1 Project Description .......................................... 1
1.2 Purpose .................................................... 1
1.3 Methodology .................................................. 1
1.4 Project Area ................................................ 2
1.5 Physiography and Soils ............................ - . - 7* ...... 2
2.0 Biotic Resources ................................................... 2
2.1 Plant Communities ........................................... 2
2.2 Anticipated Impacts to Plant Communities ......................... 3
2.3 Wildlife ...................................................4
2.3.1 Terrestrial ............................................4
2.3.2 Aquatic ..............................................4
2.4 Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife ................................. 4
3.0 Water Resources .................................................. 5
3.1 Waters Impacted ............................................ 5
3.2 Best Usage Classification and Water Quality ............ .......... 5
3.3' Stream Characteristics ........................................ 5
3.4 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources .......................... 6
4.0 Special Topics ................................................... 6
4.1 Waters of the United States .................................... 6
4. 1.1 Permits ............................................. 6
4.1.2 Mitigation ........................................... 6
4.2 Protected Species ............................................ 7
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species .............................. 7
4.2.2 Federal Candidate Species ................................ 12
4.2.3 State Protected Species ................................. 13
5.0 References ...................................................... 14
. ,
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resource Technical Report is submitted to assist in the
preparation of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) document for the project.
1.1 Project Description
y
One alternative is proposed. Alternative 1 is to replace the bridges at the existing
location with an off-site detour. The replacement structures would be a 39.6 m (130 ft) long
and 7.9 m (26 ft) wide bridge, for bridge #146 and a single 3.7 m (12 ft) by 1.8 m (6 ft) box
culvert for bridge # 147.
1.2 P=ose
The purpose of this document is to describe and inventory the natural resources identified
within the project vicinity and estimate potential impacts to these resources. Specifically, the
tasks performed for this study include: 1) an assessment of biological features within the study
corridor including descriptions of vegetation, wildlife, protected species, wetlands, and water
quality; 2) an evaluation of probable impacts resulting from construction; and 3) a preliminary
determination of permit needs.
1.3 Methodology
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from the
following sources including: North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM)
water quality classification (Cape Fear River Basin), DEM Point Source Discharge Report for
the Cape Fear River, DEM Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) survey for
the Cape Fear River, U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (USGS) quadrangle map (Wallace West,
N.C.), Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of protected species, North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NC-NHP) data base of uncommon and protected species and unique habitats
and aerial photography (scale 1: 1200) furnished by the NCDOT.
Field surveys were conducted along the proposed project alignments on May 2, 1994.
Plant communities likely to be impacted by proposed improvements were walked and visually
observed for significant features. Wildlife was identified using a number of observation
techniques; active searching and capture, visual observations (binocular), and recording
identifying signs of wildlife (sounds, tracks, and burrows). Cursory surveys of the aquatic
habitats were conducted using a long-handled triangular sweep net. Organisms captured were
identified and then released. Impact calculations were based on 24 m (80 ft) for Alternative 1.
1.4 Project Area
The proposed project occurs in a rural area on the Duplin-Pender County line (Figure 1).
Landuse is agricultural, floodplain forests, scrub-shrub and urban/disturbed areas. Floodplain
forests are found along Doctors Creek. Doctors Creek is bridged twice at the project location.
Urban/disturbed areas are limited to land adjacent to the existing bridges and road. The
scrub-shrub area is found scattered throughout the project area. Agricultural lands comprise
much of the surrounding areas.
1.5 Physiography and Soils
Duplin and Pender Counties are located within the Middle and Lower Coastal Plain
Province. Topography is characterized by smooth, gently undulating, plateau-like, seaward
sloping lands in moderate drainage. Elevations in the immediate project area range from 13.7 m
(45 ft) along the creek and floodplain forest to 15 m (50 ft) along the roadside.
The county is underlain primarily with sedimentary rock in Duplin-Pender Counties.
Local changes in subsurface geology are common, and large, homogeneous masses of a single
rock type are rare. Soils in the project vicinity are dominated by the presence of Muckalee loam
in the floodplain areas. Muckalee loam is poorly drained on flood plains and are frequently
flooded for brief periods. Muckalee loam is classified as a hydric soil or have hyrdic soils as a
major component.
2.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
2.1 Plant Communities
Three distinct plant community types occur within the immediate area of the proposed
project. Specific communities exhibited slight variation dependent upon location and physical
chffa-cteristics of the site (soils, topography, human uses, etc.). Communities are described
below.
Floodplain Hardwood Forest
Floodplain Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods, Brownwater
Subtype) are on level areas adjacent to Doctors Creek and in flooded woodlands adjacent to the
existing roadway and is a mixture of hardwoods. The canopy is composed of sweetgum
(Liquidambar stvraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), live oak ( uercus vir ing ian a), and winged
elm (Ulmus alata). Some of these species are hung with Spanish moss (Tillandsia usneoides),
particurally trees adjacent to the creek margins. Sub-canopy trees include the canopy species.
The shrub layer is composed of saplings of red maple, sweetgum, and privet (Li u, strum
sinense). Vines present are greenbrier (Smilax s=.) and trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans).
Herb layer is sparse and include southern lady fern (Athvrium asplenioides) and sensitive fern
(Onoclea sensibilis). Vegetation in the creek channels include Lizards tail (Saururus cernuus).
2
,.
.

Urban/Disturbed
This community classification includes disturbed areas adjacent to roadside margins in
the vicinity of the project. This area is characterized primarily by invasive grasses, herbs, vines
and a few shrubs including: fescue grass (Festuca sp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
'a onica), grape (Vitis sp,Q.), henbit (Lamium amplexicaule), privet, trumpet creeper, Carolina
geranium (Geranium carolinianum), vaseygrass (Paspalum urvillei), poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans), and five-fingers (Potentilla canadensis).
Scrub-Shrub
The scrub-shrub community extremely dense and is composed of silverling tree
(Baccharis halimifolia), privet, deerberry (Vaccinium stamineum) and saplings-of sweetgurn and
long leaf pine (Pinus alp ustris). A dense vine layer is composed of multiflora rose (Rosa
multiflora), greenbrier, trumpet creeper and poison ivy.
2.2 Anticipated Impacts to Plant Communities
Impacts on plant communities are reflective of the relative abundance of each system
present in the study area. It should be noted that estimated impacts were derived using the entire
proposed right of way. Project construction often does not require the entire right of way and
therefore, actual impacts may be less. The following table summarizes potential plant
community impacts which could result from the proposed bridge replacements.
Estimated Impacts to Plant Communities
PLANT COMMUNITIES
Floodplain Hardwood Forest
Urban/Disturbed
Scrub-Shrub
ESTIMATED IMPACT
Alternative 1
0.30 (0.75)
0.18 (0.45)
0.11 (0.27)
TOTAL
Note: , Values in hectares (acres).
0.59(l.47)
Impacts to plant communities as a result of bridge replacements for Alternative 1 are
restricted to narrow strips adjacent to the existing bridges and roadway segments. Bridges and
approach improvements occur primarily within disturbed right-of-way limits and floodplain
hardwood forest edges. The loss of floodplain hardwood forest habitat is likely to reduce the
number of plant species which serve as shelter, nesting and foraging habitat for numerous
species of wildlife.
2.3 Wildlife
2.3.1 Terrestrial
The project area consists of a combination of rural countryside, floodplain forests,
scrub-shrub and urban/disturbed areas along roads. Clearing and conversion of tracts of land for
agricultural and residential uses has eliminated some cover and protection for many indigenous
wildlife species nearby the project area. The remaining natural plant communities in the area,
particularly the forested area adjacent to Doctors Creek and associated ecotomes, do serve as
valuable habitat. The forest bordering Doctors Creek has all the necessary components (food,
water, protective cover) for mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians.
No sighting or evidence (tracks, scat, burrows, nests, etc.) for any mammal species were
observed. Mammals typical for this area are the gray squirrel ( ciurus carolinensis), gray fox
(Urocyon cinereoargenteus), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginian a), mink (Mustela vison) and
white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus).
The observed bird species are typical of a rural forested setting where a patchwork of
habitat types are available. Species encountered above and nearby Doctors Creek include crows
(Corvus brachy-rhynchos), Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), mourning dove (Zenaida
macroura), a flock of blue jays (Cvanocitta cristata) and wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina).
Reptiles and amphibians typical of these communities include the eastern garter snake
(Thamno his sirtalis), Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis), eastern box turtle (Terrapene
Carolina), and Fowler's Toad (Bufo woodhousei).
2.3.2 Aquatic
Doctors Creek supports aquatic invertebrates and several species of fish. Game fish
species present are redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), redfin pickerel (Esox americanus
americanus), catfish (Ictalurus sue.), warmouth (Chaenobl v=s ulosus) and sucker (Moxostoma
The creek and adjacent banks also provide suitable benthic and riparian habitat for
amphibians and aquatic reptiles such as the eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), northern
dusky salamander (Desmognathus fuscus), frogs (Rana spy.), snapping turtles (Chelydra
s=entina) and several snake species.
2.4 Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife
Habitat affected by the proposed action include Urban/Disturbed, Scrub-shrub and
Floodplain Hardwood Forested areas. Floodplain Hardwood Forest habitat provides excellent
habitat for a diversity of plants and animals. The Urban/Disturbed area is utilized by
opportunistic plant species such as greenbriar and Japanese honeysuckle and mobile species such
as rodents, lizards and snakes that can recover quickly from construction impacts.
4
The proposed action can potentially have substantial affects on the aquatic ecosystem
unless strict sediment control measures are taken. The disturbance of the creek bed and
sedimentation from the banks could affect aquatic life, (fish, mollusks, and benthic
invertebrates) both at the project site as well as down stream reaches.
3.0 WATER RESOURCES
3.1 Waters Impacted

Bridges #146 and #147 cross Doctors Creek at the Duplin-Pender County line. Doctors
Creek flows to the east and subsequent receptor systems.are part of the Cape Fear River Basin.
3.2.1 Best Usage Classification and Water Quality - -°
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing
or contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin (DEM 1993).
Doctors Creek is class C Sw, indicating waters which are suitable for aquatic life propagation
an d survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture and a supplemental
classification for swamp waters; waters which have low velocities and other natural
characteristics which are different from adjacent streams.
The DEM National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) reports no
dischargers within 6.4 km (four miles) upstream of the proposed crossing.
No High Quality Waters (HQW), Anadromous Fish Spawning Areas, Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW), WS I or WS II Waters occur within 1.6 km (1 mile) of the project site.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long term trends in
water quality at fixed monitoring sites by the sampling for benthic macroinvertebrates. Certain
organisms are sensitive to very subtile changes in water quality. Good water quality is
associated with high taxa richness (the number of different types of organisms) and the presence
of many intolerant species. Water quality degradation gradually eliminates the more sensitive
species and leads to a community structure quite different from that in an unstressed waterbody.
There are no BMAN sampling stations on streams in the immediate vicinity of the project.
3.1.2 Stream Characteristics
Doctors Creek originates in southeastern Sampson County approximately 12.9 km (8
miles) above the subject bridge. The stream is approximately 6 in (20 ft) and 2.7 in (9 ft) in
width, respectively, below bridges #146 and #147. Maximum depth varied from approximately
61 cm (2 ft) for Bridge #146 to 23 cm (9 inches) for Bridge #147. During field investigations
the main body of the channels were bridged. Surface flow was stagnant below each bridge.
Substrate was grey clay/marl below each bridge. The water color was brown below both
bridges.
5

c,
G1

?. V

f
!
rl

z'l

! 1

?J
f

r
lJl
I
Kp , f
• N

4`.,

V

1

1
?? Z?N

?J t
G
?l
1
C.
.r