19970047 Ver 1_Complete File_19970130

nAlt
3t
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF 1PANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
September 22, 1997
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office ° 1
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120 ?/
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
aq o?f1
ATTENTION: Mr. Michael D. Smith, P.W.S. C
Chief, North Section
Dear Sir:
Subject: Duplin/Wa_yne Counties, Replacement of Bridge No. 256 over Northeast Cape Fear River
on SR 1530/1948, Federal Project No. BRZ-11948(1), State Project No. 8.2330901,
T.I.P. No. B-2873.
On January 24, 1997 the North Carolina Department of Transportation distributed a Categorical Exclusion
document for the above referenced project proposing to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in accordance
with 33 CFR Appendix A (B-23). The CE document stated that construction of the proposed project could
result in 0.32 hectares (0.79 acres) of permanent impact and 0.25 hectares (0.61 acres) of temporary
impacts, resulting from an on-site detour, on jurisdictional wetlands. The project has been redesigned. The
temporary detour has been eliminated. In addition, the wetlands have been delineated. The fill for the new
structure will not extend beyond the fill for the existing structure. Therefore, no jurisdictional wetlands
would be affected by the construction of the project.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon at 733-7844 Ext.
307.
yrankliSincerel,n Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
cc: w/attachment
Mr. David Lekson, Corps of Engineers, Washington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E. Program Development Branch
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. D. R. Dupree. Division 4 Engineer
Mr. Philip S. Harris, P.E., P & E Project Planning Engineer
?r
STA Tr
t.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
January 24, 1997
17x y /I
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
401 ISSUED
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. Michael D. Smith, P.W.S.
Chief, North Section
Dear Sir:
Subject: Duplin/Wayne Counties, Replacement of Bridge No. 256 over Northeast
Cape Fear River on SR 1530/1948, Federal Project No. BRZ-11948(1),
State Project No. 8.2330901, T.I.P. No. B-2873.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. Bridge No. 256 will be replaced at its existing location with a bridge 41 meters
(135 feet) long and 9.2 meters (30 feet) wide. Improvements to the existing approaches
will be necessary on each end of the bridge. During construction traffic will be maintained
with a temporary, on-site detour located west of the existing roadway. Construction of the
proposed project may result in 0.32 hectares (0.79 acres) of permanent impact and 0.25
hectares (0.61 acres) of temporary impacts on jurisdictional wetlands.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical
Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CF V 15(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate
requesting an individual permit, but pr pose t proceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR Appendix A (B-23) The provisions of Section 330.4 and
Appendix A (C) of these regulations *11 ollowed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate the 401 General Certification No. 2745 (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 Water Quality,
for their review.
NO?
17
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Nis. Alice N. Gordon
at 733-7844 Ext. 307.
Sincerely,
/l
H. ranklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: w/attachment
Mr. David Lekson, Corps of Engineers, Washington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E. Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. D. R. Dupree, Division 4 Engineer
Mr. Philip S. Harris, P.E., P & E Project Planning Engineer
i
i
i
i
i
Duplin and Wayne Counties
SR 1530/ SR 1948
Bridge No. 256 over Northeast Cape Fear River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1948(1)
State Project No. 8.2330901
T.I.P. No. B-2873
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
L
L
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
DA
JZ
y? G
cholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator,FHWA
DATE
401 issuaD

I

t

1

t
I

Duplin and Wayne Counties
SR 1530/ SR 1948
Bridge No. 256 over Northeast Cape Fear River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1948(1)
State Project No. 8.2330901
T.I.P. No. B-2873
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
November, 1996
Documentation Prepared By Ko & Associates, P.C.
Lisa Hilliard, P.E.
Project Manager - Ko & Associates
o o
° o
o
°
° SEAL
0 a
M31 N V?
?® A p0
94

For North Carolina Department of Transportation
(1Y)aati6A4/_r ?'
L. G es, , Unit Head
Consu ant Engin eying Unit
PUVD'??-- IE:
Philip S. arris, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
401 ISSUE

Duplin and Wayne Counties
SR 1530/ SR 1948
Bridge No. 256 over Northeast Cape Fear River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1948(1)
State Project No. 8.2330901
T.I.P. No. B-2873
Bridge No. 256 is included in the NCDOT 1997-2003 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".
I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
1. All standard procedures and measures, including NCDOT's Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters, will be implemented, as applicable, to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts.
2. The location and installation of any required deck drains will be determined during final
design stages.
3. The temporary, on-site detour bridge and approaches will be removed to pre-construction
contour and revegetated with native tree species at 320 stems per acre.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 256 will be replaced in its existing location with a bridge. During construction traffic will
be maintained with a temporary, on-site detour located west of the existing bridge.
The estimated cost for the proposed improvement is $942,070. The estimated cost of the project, as
shown in the NCDOT 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program, is $381,000 including
$21,000 for right-of-way and $360,000 for construction.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1530/ SR 1948 is classified as a rural local route in the Statewide Functional Classification
System. The proposed project occurs in a rural area along the Duplin County/Wayne County line
approximately 12 kilometers (7.5 mi) east of the town of Mount Olive (Figure 1). Land use in the
study area is primarily agricultural and silvicultural. Crop lands occupy uplands along the southern
approach segment while woodlands are concentrated along steep upland slopes and within the
inundated river floodplain.
Near the bridge, SR 1530/ SR 1948 has a 6.1 meter (20 ft) pavement width with 2.4 meter (8 ft)
shoulders. The roadway approaches slope down toward the bridge. The horizontal alignment is
tangent on the bridge with a 1900 meter radius (1 degree) curve approximately 20 meters (65 ft) from
the bridge to the south. The north approach is tangent. The roadway is situated approximately 4.3
meters (14 ft) above the creek bed.
The traffic volumes were 900 vehicles per day (vpd) for 1995 and projected to be 2100 vpd for the
design year 2020. The volumes include 1 % truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 2% dual-tired (DT)
vehicles. The speed limit is not posted and assumed to be 88 kilometers per hour (55 mph).
The existing bridge was built in 1955 (Figure 3). The superstructure consists of seven timber joist
spans. Bridge deck construction is a creosote timber floor deck with an asphalt wearing surface. The
substructure consists of creosote timber pile end bents and interior bents with timber caps.
The overall length of the bridge is 36.9 meters (121 ft). Clear roadway width is 5.8 meters (19.2 ft).
The posted weight limit is 7257.6 kilograms (8 tons) for single vehicles and 12,700.8 kilograms (14
tons) for tractor trailer trucks.
Bridge No. 256 has a sufficiency rating of 9.5, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
Three accidents were reported in the vicinity of the bridge during the period from April 1, 1992 to
March 31, 1995.
There are no utilities located in the proposed project area.
School buses do not use this bridge.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
No alternatives were considered for replacement of the bridge in its existing location. Utilizing the
existing roadway provides the best alignment and the lowest cost. A relocated alignment would result
in excessive cost and undesirable horizontal alignment. Based on a benefit-cost ratio of 2.7:1, an off-
site detour is not reasonable (see Section VII). Temporary, on-site detours were considered west
(Temporary Detour 1) and east (Temporary Detour 2) of the existing bridge. Traffic would be
maintained with a temporary, on-site detour located west (Temporary Detour 1) of the existing bridge
because this detour is less costly than Temporary Detour 2.
The No-Build or "do-nothing" alternative was also considered but would eventually necessitate
closure of the bridge. This is not desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1948/SR 1530.
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.
2

V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternative studied, based on current prices, are as follow:

Alternate A
with on-site
detour
(Recommended) Alternate A
with off-site
detour
Structure Removal $14,625.00 $14,625.00
Structure $263,900.00 $263,900.00
Roadway Approaches $163,282.50 $163,282.50
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $133,192.50 $133,192.50
Engineering and Contingencies $100,000.00 $100,000.00
Right-of-Way / Const. Easement / Util. $91950.00 $9,950.00
SUBTOTAL $684,950.00 $684,950.00
Temporary On-Site Detour No. 1 $257,120.00 NA
TOTAL $942,070.00 $684,950.00
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 256 will be replaced in its existing location with a new structure approximately 41 meters
(134 ft) in length having a clear roadway width of 9.2 meters (30 ft). Improvements to the existing
approaches will be necessary on each end of the bridge. During construction traffic will be
maintained with a temporary, on-site detour located west of the existing roadway (Temporary Detour
1). An off-site detour is not reasonable at this location due to its length of 12.6 kilometers (7.8 mi)
of indirectional travel and the volume of traffic using SR 1530/SR 1948 (900 vpd in 1995 and 2100
vpd projected for 2020).
The Division Office concurs with the recommended improvements.
VII. TRAFFIC DETOUR
A road user analysis was performed for detouring traffic on existing roads based on 900 vpd and an
average of 12.6 kilometers (7.8 mi) of indirectional travel utilizing SR 1501, SR 1502, and SR 1754
(See Figure 1). The cost of additional travel would be approximately $760,000 during the twelye-
month construction period. The estimated cost of providing an on-site detour is $277,120 resulting
3
in a benefit-cost ratio of 2.74:1. This ratio indicates justification to maintain traffic on-site during the
construction period.
VIII. NATURAL RESOURCES
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a number of
sources including applicable U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute quadrangle mapping
(Williams, NC), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory mapping,
Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly Soil Conservation Service) soils mapping (USDA
1959, USDA 1974), and 1993 aerial photography (scale: 1:1200) furnished by NCDOT.
The principal investigator for natural resources was Kevin Markham with Environmental Services,
Inc. Mr. Markham received his B.S. and M.S. degrees in Marine Biology from the University of
North Carolina, Wilmington. He has eight years of experience in coastal ecosystems evaluations,
wildlife surveys, wetland delineations, mitigation planning, and threatened and endangered species
issues.
The site was visited on March 14, 1996. Communities likely to be impacted by proposed
improvements were walked and visually surveyed for important features. Surveys were conducted
within a study corridor approximately 91.4 meters (300 ft) in width, symmetrical to the existing
alignment. However, impact calculations are based on the approximate right-of-way and temporary
construction easements. Special concerns evaluated in the field include potential habitat for protected
species, wetlands, and water quality protection in upper reaches of the Northeast Cape Fear River.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community
classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant names follow
nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968). Jurisdictional areas were identified using the three
parameter approach (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, wetland hydrology) following U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas are characterized
according to a classification scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979). Habitats used by
terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms, as well as expected population distributions, were
determined through field observations, evaluation of available habitat, and supportive documentation
(Martof et al. 1980; Webster et al. 1985; Menhinick 1991; Hamel 1992). Recreational fishing
potential was obtained from Fish (1968). Water quality information for area streams and tributaries
was derived from available sources (DEM 1989, DEM 1993). Quantitative sampling was not
undertaken to support existing data.
USFWS listings of federal protected species with ranges which extend into Duplin and Wayne
Counties were obtained prior to initiation of the field investigation. In addition, NHP records
documenting presence of federal or state listed species were consulted before commencing the field
4

investigation.
r Physiography and Soils
The bridge replacement project is located in the upper Coastal Plain physiographic province. This
portion of the Coastal Plain is underlain by the Black Creek geologic formation, which is Cretaceous
in age. The Black Creek formation is characterized by fine grained, micaceous sands containing
intermittent glauconitic, fossiliferous clayey sand lenses (DNRCD 1985). Topography is
characterized by broad, smooth flats and gently rolling interstream divides, periodically dissected by
relatively slow-flowing streams and rivers. Elevations in the immediate project area range from 36
meters (118 ft) along the upland terrace to 30 meters (98 ft) within the river floodplain. The southern
edge of the fowdplain, immediately adjacent to the river channel, supports a relatively steep rise onto
the adjacent interstream divide while the northem floodplain area exhibits a broad gradual slope that
constitutes an extensive riverine corridor.
Soils in the study corridor include the Johnston series (Cumulic Humaquepts) and Pamlico series
(Terric Medisaprists) in the river floodplain and the Ruston series (Typic Paleudults) in adjacent
upland communities. The Johnston and Pamlico series are hydric, very poorly drained fluvial soils,
with a seasonal high water table at or above the soil surface. These soils are flooded frequently and
' for long durations by overbank flood events from the adjacent river channel. The non-hydric, Ruston
map unit supports well drained soils on a convex slope adjacent to the riverine floodplain. These
upland soils exhibit moderate permeability, low shrink-swell potential, and have a seasonal high water
table below 1.5 meters (5 ft) of the surface.
WATER RESOURCES
Waters Impacted
The study corridor is located within the Northeast Cape Fear River Subbasin (USGS hydrologic unit
03030007) of the Cape Fear River Basin. Bridge No.256 crosses upper reaches of Northeast Cape
Fear River near the town of Mount Olive approximately 12 kilometers (7.5 mi) downstream of the
origin of this blackwater system. This below-headwater tributary flows southeast from the study
corridor approximately 145 kilometers (90 mi) to the confluence with the Cape Fear River and
Brunswick River near Wilmington, N.C. The Northeast Cape Fear River in the study corridor region
has been assigned Stream Index Number 18-31-(23) by the N.C. Division of Environmental
Management (DEM).
tsest usage ijassmcatlons ana water wain
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. The upper Northeast
Cape Fear River segment has a best use classification of C Sw (DEM 1993). The designation C
denotes that the appropriate uses include aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation, and agriculture. Secondary recreation refers to human body contact on an
infrequent or incidental basis. The Sw designation is used for swamp waters characterized by low
velocities, low pH, low dissolved oxygen levels, and high organic content.
The proposed project will not impact any High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW), or Water Supply (WS-I, WS-II) waters (DEM 1993). In addition, none of these
classifications occur within 1.6 kilometers (1 mi) of the project area. The Northeast Cape Fear River
is not designated as a North Carolina Natural and Scenic River, nor is it designated as a national Wild
and Scenic River. There are no point source dischargers with a permitted flow over 0.5 mgd located
in the project area (DEM 1989). The nearest permitted discharge comprises the Mount Olive Waste
Water Treatment Plant, with a permitted discharge of 1.0 mgd, located approximately 12 kilometers
(7.5 mi) upstream of the project bridge. Point source dischargers will not be affected by proposed
improvements.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long-term trends in water
quality at fixed monitoring sites by the sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrates (DEM 1989).
Species richness and overall biomass are considered to be reflections of water quality. Two BMAN
special study sites are located in the project vicinity, as a result of a study of Mount Olive Pickle.
DEM sampling site No.61 is located at NC 403 on the Northeast Cape Fear River, approximately 5.6
kilometers (3.5 mi) upstream from the study corridor. In addition, the Polly Run Creek sampling
station (DEM Site No.60) is located on a tributary which confluences with the Northeast Cape Fear
River approximately 2.4 kilometers (1.5 mi) upstream from the study corridor. Polly Run Creek
exhibits a good/fair bioclassification rating while assessments at NC 403 indicate a poor
bioclassification rating. Brine wastes appear to have resulted in poor water quality within the portion
of the upper Northeast Cape Fear River which includes the study corridor (DEM 1989).
Stream Characteristics
This blackwater system supports a broad, meandering stream channel measuring approximately 7.6
meters (25 ft) in bank-full width in the bridge vicinity. Depth of stream water averages approximately
1.8 meters (6 ft) at bank-full discharge. Stream flow is slow to very slow with the substrate and
stream banks composed primarily of sand and silt deposits. Submergent, aquatic vegetation and
accumulations of organic debris are evident along the upper portions of subject stream banks.
Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Short-term impacts to water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, can be anticipated from
construction-related activities. Adverse impacts will be minimized by implementing the NCDOT Bgq
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters (BMPs), as applicable, during construction.
No adverse long-term impacts to water resources are expected to result from proposed
improvements. The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of present flow rates
thereby protecting stream integrity.
6

BIOTIC RESOURCES
Four distinct communities were identified within the study corridor. Two communities, identified as
mixed mesophytic hardwood forest and riverine swamp forest, are considered natural communities.
The other two communities, identified as agricultural land and upland urban/disturbed land, result
from some level of disturbance. The plant communities are described below.
Riverine Swamp Forest
The river floodplain supports a wetland, swamp forest community dominated by bald cypress
(Taxodium distichum), swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora), water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica), sweet gum
(Liquidambar styracif lua), and river birch (Betula nigra). Understory/shrub development is sparse
and includes regeneration of canopy species along with Carolina ash (Fraxinus caroliniana), sweet
bay (Magnolia virginiana), red bay (Persea palustris), and dog hobble (Leucothoe axillaris).
Groundcover is also sparse, usually concentrated upon hammocks, and includes arrowhead
(Sagittaria sp.), lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus), sphagnum mosses (Sphagnum spp.), royal fern
(Osmunda regalis), netted chain-fern (Woodwardia areolata), and Virginia chain-fern (Woodwardia
virginiana).
Mixed Mesophytic Hardwood Forest
Relatively steep riparian slopes bordering the southern edge of the river floodplain support mesic
hardwood forest cover. This upland community is dominated by sweet gum, red maple (Acer
rubrum), willow oak (Qum w phellos), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), and white oak (Quercus
alba). The understory/shrub layer is generally characterized by sapling growth of canopy species
along with privet (Ligustrum sinense), red mulberry (Morus rubra), and black cherry (Prunus
serotina). Characteristic vines include trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and blackberry (Rubus sp.).
Agricultural Land
The upland terrace along the southern study corridor boundary supports agricultural land currently
under crop rotation. This area typically supports crops such as corn and tobacco with disturbance-
adapted, successional plant species inhabiting field edges and ditch banks.
Upland Urban/Disturbed Land
This community classification includes disturbed roadside margins and maintained grass right-of-
ways. Along roadside fringes, maintained grasses and early successional herbs persist on eroded
slopes and among scattered household debris.
Anticipated impacts to plant communities are estimated based on the amount of each plant community
present within the proposed right-of-way and temporary construction easements. A summary of plant
7

community impacts which could result from construction activities is presented below.
Table 1. Estimated plant community impacts.
PLANT COMMUNITY ESTIMATED IMPACT
in hectares (acres in parentheses)
Alternative A Temp. Detour .1 Temp. Detour 2
Riverine Swamp Forest
Mesophytic Hardwood Forest
Agricultural Land
Urban/Disturbed Land
0.32 (0.79)
0.01 (0.02)
0.00 (0.00)
0.26 (0.65)
0.25 (0.61)
0.03 (0.07)
0.00 (0.00)
0.00 (0.00)
0.22 (0.54)
0.05 (0.12)
0.05 (0.12)
0.08 (0.21)
TOTAL: 0.59(l.46) 0.28 (0.68) 0.40 (0.99)

Impacts to plant communities as a result of Alternative A will total approximately 0.59 hectare (1.46
ac). These impacts are restricted to narrow strips immediately adjacent to the existing bridge and
roadway approach segments. Nearly one-half of these potential impacts 0.26 hectare (0.65 ac) do
not infringe upon natural communities, but affect agricultural and disturbed lands.
The off site detour alternative is not expected to result in impacts to plant communities due to the
utilization of existing roads. Temporary on-site detour alternatives exhibit a minor variation in impacts
to natural communities. Temporary Detour 1 will impact approximately 0.28 hectare (0.68 ac) of
natural communities while Temporary Detour 2 will impact approximately 0.27 hectare (0.66 ac) of
natural communities. Impacts to plant communities as a result of either detour alternative are
temporary. Upon completion of the bridge replacement project, fill associated with the temporary
detour will be removed and the area will be restored.
Construction of the proposed alternative and temporary detour is not expected to result in substantial
adverse impacts to the plant communities in the study corridor. Temporary detour fill will be removed
after construction allowing for restoration at these impacted areas.
Wildlife
Most of the study corridor outside the river floodplain consists of agricultural land. Clearing and
conversion of large tracts of land has eliminated contiguous cover and limited travel opportunities for
many traditional forms of wildlife. Even so, remaining contiguous natural communities concentrated
within the Northeast Cape Fear River floodplain represent valuable habitat for resident species.
Forested floodplains and adjacent mesophytic slopes provide the necessary components (food, water,
protective covering) for mammals, raptors, and songbirds.

I

Sightings or evidence (tracks, scat, burrows, etc) were noted for several species of mammals
including white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), mink (Mustela vison),
marsh rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris), and bobcat (Felix mfus). Tree cuttings and embankment burrows
indicate the presence of beaver (Castor canadensis) and muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus).
Raptors and owls expected in the river floodplain and adjacent areas include red-tailed hawk (Buteo
jamaicensis), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), barred owl (Strix varia), great homed owl
(Bubo virginianus), and eastern screech owl (Otus asio). Raptors and owls may nest in the mature
bottomland swamp forests and feed along adjacent agricultural fields.
Waterbirds which frequent swamp bottomlands and can be expected in the study area include great
blue heron (Ardea herodias), belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon), wood duck (Aix sponsa), mallard
(Anas platyrhynchos), and green-backed heron (Butorides striatus).
Aquatic
L

This section of the Northeast Cape Fear River may contain limited recreational fisheries for redfin
pickerel (Esox americanus) and warmouth (Lepomis gulosus) (Fish 1968). Additional nongame fish
populations expected to inhabit the stream/river system include pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus),
eastern mud minnow (Umbra pygmaea), and mud sunfish (Acantharchus pomotis). However,
documented pollution (brine) sources upstream of the project bridge may have limited habitat
suitability for freshwater mussel species (Elliptio spp.). Stream bank surveys uncovered no shell
fragments which could indicate mussel presence at the bridge site.
Semi-permanently inundated back-water areas and ephemeral pools in the floodplain provide suitable
habitat for a wide array of semi-aquatic organisms such as eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens),
southern dusky salamander (Desmognathus auriculatus), several frog species (Rana spp.), painted
turtle (Chrysemys picta), and banded water snake (Nerodia fasciata).
Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, the proposed bridge replacement
will not result in substantial loss or displacement of known terrestrial or aquatic animal populations.
Maintenance of regular flow and stream integrity will minimise potential down-stream impacts to
aquatic habitat by the proposed bridge replacement. In addition, permanent and temporary impacts
to downstream aquatic habitat from increased sediment during construction will be minimized by the
implementation of the NCDOT Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters.
SPECIAL TOPICS
Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the embankments of the Northeast Cape Fear River are subject to consideration
9
under Section 404 as "waters of the United States" (33 CFR 328.3). Due to the frequent and
prolonged overflow of the river into the swamp system, this surface water area has been included
within the riverine swamp forest plant community acreage.
Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) are defined
by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of
hydrology at or near the soil surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season (DOA 1987)
Based on this three parameter approach, one jurisdictional wetland type occurs within the broad
floodplain associated with the Northeast Cape Fear River. The riverine swamp forest plant
community exhibits characteristics of palustrine forested, deciduous, semi-permanently flooded
wetlands (PF06F). The following table summarizes potential wetland impacts which could result
from the in-place bridge replacement and temporary detours.
Table 2. Estimated wetland impacts.
WETLAND TYPE ESTIMATED IMPACT
in hectares (acres in parentheses)
Alternative A Temp. Detour 1 Temp. Detour 2
PF06F 0.32 (0.79) 0.25 (0.61) 0.22 (0.54)
Bridging of the Northeast Cape Fear River will minimise impacts to the open waters of the river.
Impacts to wetlands as a result of Alternative A will total 0.32 hectare (0.79 ac). These impacts are
restricted to narrow strips immediately adjacent to the existing bridge and roadway approach
segments.
Temporary detour alternatives would each impact nearly the same amount of wetlands, but
Temporary Detour 1 will impact approximately 0.03 hectare (0.07 ac) more than Temporary Detour
2. Impacts to wetlands as a result of either detour alternative are temporary. Upon completion of the
bridge replacement, fill associated with the temporary detour will be removed and the area will be
restored.
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands are anticipated from project construction. In accordance with
provisions of Section 404 of the CWA, a permit will be required from the COE for the discharge of
dredge or fill material into "Waters of the United States."
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A) (23) is likely to be applicable for all impacts to Waters of
the United States from the proposed project. This permit authorizes activities undertaken, assisted,
10

L
t

r?

IX. CULTURAL RESOURCES
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 for federally
funded, licensed, or permitted projects, having an effect on properties listed in or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an
opportunity to comment.
In a concurrence form dated May 9, 1996 the Federal Highway Administration, NCDOT, and the
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred that there are no properties,
including Bridge No.256, in the area of potential effect (APE) listed in or eligible for the National
Register (see Appendix for Concurrence Form).
In their April 22, 1996 letter, the SHPO stated there are no known archaeological sites in the
proposed project area and it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may be eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places will be affected. They recommended no archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with this project (see Appendix for SHPO letter). Therefore,
the NCDOT has not conducted nor will conduct any archaeological work in connection with this
project.
Since there are no properties either listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
within the APE, no further compliance with Section 106 is required.
X. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact by replacing a potentially unsafe bridge.
Inconvenience to motorists will be negligible since traffic will be maintained on site.
The project is considered 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 regulations. No significant
change in existing land use is expected to result from replacement of the bridge.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. 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.
13
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.
Since the project will consist of replacing an existing bridge in its existing location, the Farmland
Protection Policy Act does not apply.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the regional
emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
Noise levels could increase during demolition 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 State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC
2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise of Title
23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772 and for air quality (1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act) 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 and Wayne Counties are participants in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The
bridge is located in a Detailed Study Area. The Flood Boundary and Floodway Map is included in
the Appendix. This map indicates the limits of the 100-year and the 500-year floodplains as well as
the 100-year floodway. Since the proposed bridge will be an in-kind replacement, it is not anticipated
that this project will have a significant adverse impact on the existing floodplain and floodway nor
on the associated flood hazard to the adjacent properties and buildings.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental effects
will result from implementation of the project.
14

REFERENCES
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. USFWS/OBS -79/31. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (DNRCD). 1985. Geologic Map
of North Carolina. North Carolina Geological Survey.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Tech.
Rpt. Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 100 pp.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1989. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient
Network (BMAN) Water Quality Review 1983-1987. Rpt. 89-08. N.C. Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 193 pp.

J
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Classifications and Water Quality Standards
Assigned to the Waters of the Broad River Basin. N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Fish, F. F. 1968. A Catalog of the Inland Fishing Waters of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Division of Inland Fisheries, Raleigh. 312 pp.
Hamel, P. B. 1992. Land Managers Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,
Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
Henry, V.G. 1989. Guidelines for Preparation of Biological Assessments and Evaluations for the
Red-cockaded Woodpecker. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast
Region, Atlanta, GA. 13 pp.
Martof, B. S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of
the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 264 pp.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fished of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Raleigh, NC. 227 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C.
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh 325 pp.
15
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1959. Soil Survey of Duplin County, North Carolina. Soil
Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1974. Soil Survey of Wayne County, North Carolina.
Soil Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDT). 1984. Bridges over Navigable Waters of the United
States: Atlantic Coast. United States Coast Guard, Washington, DC. 216 pp.
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, NC. 255 pp.
16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I
I

I
I
i
BRIDGE NO. 256
DUPLIN/WAYNE
COUNTIES
B-2873
LOOKING NORTH
LOOKING SOUTH
SIDE VIEW
FIGURE 3
r
t

[3 - 281 ''?
'
REFERENCE
MARK ELEVATION REFERENCE MARKS
ELEVATION
(FT. NGVD) DESCRIPTION OF LOCATION
' RM 151 101 98 Mark on left downstream corner of County Road 1948 bridge over
Northeast Cape Fear River
RM 152 112 19 Mark on left downstream corner of State Highway 403 bridge over
1 Northeast Cape Fear River
REFERENCE M ARKS LOCATED ON PANEL 370254 0065
RM 3 89 12 Nail in top left downstream wmgwall of County Road 1225 bridge over
Burden Creek, 1,500 feet south of County Road 1007
RM 23 110 70 From intersection of County Road 1216 and County Road 1217 go
northeast on County Road 121 7 for 0 8 rnile and reference mark is on
' n ghthand side of 1217 on north side of 12 sweetgum tree
RM 24 116 07 From intersection of County Road 1216 and County Road 121 7 go down
County Road 1217 for 1 1 mile across bridge to dirt path on right hand
' side of road. Reference mark is 700 feet southeast of County Road 121 7
on oast side of 20 inch pine tree
RM 25 92 89 Reference mark is on same path as R M 24 only it is 1 200 feet east of RM
t 24 and on east side of 15 inch birch tree
RM 26 131 14 Reference mark is at intersection of County Road 121 7 and County Road
1008. 400 feet east of intersection on east side of 20 Inch oak tree
' RM 27 83 60 Reference mark Is a nail and cap type on a 1 O nu;h hickory tree Iocaied 1 3
nine north of County Road 1008 wh.ch is 0 3 nine northeast of Stevens
r'('r
STATE
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
April 22, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook ???
DeputY State His nc Preservation Officer
q
SUBJECT: Group XI Bridge Replacement Projects
Bridge 256 on SR 1948/SR 1530 over Northeast Cape
Fear River, Duplin/Wayne Counties, B-2873, ER 96-
8566
Division of Archives and His
Jeffrey J. Crow, Dire
Thank you for your letter of March 13, 1996, concerning the above project.
We are aware of no structures of historic or architectural importance within the general
area of the project. We recommend that an architectural historian on your staff identify
and evaluate any structures over fifty years of age within the project area, and report the
findings to us.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our
present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may
be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the
project construction. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be
conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act 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.
DB:slw
cc: N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2507 g
Federal Aid # V12Z' 1°140, () TIP # t3' 24-13 County PuP1'W/NAy14E
' CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
' Brief Project Description 94FLAOB %IL196 E ao. 2" oN e P- M44/ tit- ItiS-v ovm t4l V SAsr
GA.PP. FEA 9- t2iJrr.?. ( 6WQW, C4-tAP xt
r
' On Wl!?J 1110 , representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
' Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
' All parties present agreed
? there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
? there arc no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
' Consideration G within the project's area of potential effects.
there arc properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the projects area of potential effects,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as arc considered not eligible
for National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
' S igncd:
' Rcpri:?Li
CDOT
`i i I'll
Da
'51W Al
NvA' fbr the Division
1)P?V.1&u11
ReprescnSHPO
inistrator, or other Federal Agency
i v_v t. r.-/ f State Historic Preservation Officer /
S
if a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
Date

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B, Howes, Secretary
A, Preston Howard, Jr„ RE., Director
4"r
AE4**A
ED F= F11
April 15, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Phil Harris
From: Eric Galambo
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for Group XI Bridge Replacement Projects
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental Management requests that
DOT consider the following generic environmental commitments for bridge
replacements:
A. DEM requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled,
"Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout
design and construction for this project in the area that drains to streams having
WS (water supply), ORW (outstanding resource water), HOW (high quality
water), B (body contact), SA (shellfish water) or Tr (trout water) classifications
to protect existing uses.
B. DEM requests that bridges be replaced in existing location with road closure. If
an on-site detour or road realignment is necessary, the approach fills should be
removed to pre-construction contour and revegetated with native tree species at
320 stems per acre.
C. DEM requests that weep holes not be installed in the replacement bridges in
order to prevent sediment and other pollutants from entering the body of water.
If this is not completely possible, weep holes should not be installed directly
over water.
D. Wetland impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures). If this is not possible, alternatives that minimize wetland
impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts may be required.
E. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands. It is likely that compensatory
mitigation will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
Please be aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts
have not been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
cc: Monica Swihart
Melba McGee
bridges.sco
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

u

LJ

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
REPLY TO April 11, 1996
ATTENTION OF
Regulatory Branch
Action ID No. 199601562
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
C' <1
b
? cn
PQ?
?? Oar `,\;;
LNG &
Reference your letter dated March 13, 1996, requesting comments regarding
the potential environmental impacts associated with the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Group XI Bridge Replacement Project,
Bridge No. 50 on NC Highway 903 over Little Contentnea Creek, at the Pitt
County and Greene County line, near Scuffleton, North Carolina, TIP 3-1204.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates excavation and/or discharge
of excavated and/or fill material into waters of the United states, including
wetlands. The Corps of Engineers must assess the impacts of such activities
on the aquatic environment before a final permit decision can be made.
' Federal permit authorization of fill activities within waters of the
United States pursuant to Section 404 requires that the project be water
dependant and/or that no practicable alternatives are available. Our initial
emphasis for review of NCDOT projects focuses on anticipated impacts to waters
and/or wetlands. However, if degradation to other aspects of the natural
environment (e.g., critical habitat of endangered species) is considered to be
of greater concern, an alternative resulting in greater aquatic losses may be
' chosen as preferred. In all cases, and in accordance with the 1990 Mitigation
Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
the Corps, unavoidable impacts to wetland resources must be addressed prior to
the final permit decision.
Based upon our review of the documentation you provided, much more
information is needed for us to make a determination rrmarHinca rha Federal
permit requirements. Specifically, you should provide project plans which
describe the proposed work and indicate all impacts to waters of the United
States, including wetlands, associated with this project. Wetland impacts
should be described in terms of size, location, and type. This includes
temporary and permanent approach fills, and any borrow/waste activity that may
impact waters and/or wetlands.
' Once this information becomes available, please provide it to the
Washington Regulatory Field office for our review. As your planning process
continues, please be reminded that avoidance and minimization of impacts to
' waters and wetlands should be undertaken to the maximum extent practicable.
In addition, a compensatory mitigation plan must be developed and approved
prior to the issuance of a Department of the Army permit.

-2-
Thank you for your time and cooperation. If you have any questions,
please contact Mr. Henry Wicker, Washington Regulatory Field Office,
telephone [phone], extension 25.
Sincerely,
LC/" 4 kL
David M. Lekson, P.W.S.
Field Office Manager
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. Thomas Welborn, Chief
Wetlands Regulatory Section - Region IV
Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Mr. Larry Hardy
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. John Hefner
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office G E ! i
Post Office Box 33726 ^ f?
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726 ?(?
March 27, 1996
7 MAR 2 b 1996
Mr. H. Franklin Vick !L Divio"Ic'4 ci
Planning and Environmental Branch C, HIGHWAYS
N.C. Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201 ONIdIE
Raleigh, NC 27611
Subject: Group XI Bridge Replacement Projects
Various counties, North Carolina (TIP Nos. B-1204, 2514, 2533,
2818, 2861, 2862, 2873, 2964, 3011, 3035, 3085, 3274, 3392, 3410)
Dear Mr. Vick:
This responds to your letter of March 13, 1996 requesting information from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for evaluating the potential
environmental impacts of the above-referenced projects. This report provides
scoping information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report also serves
as comments to federal and state resource agencies for use in their permitting
and/or certification processes for this project.
Preliminary planning by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
calls for the replacement of fourteen bridges in various Eastern North Carolina
counties.
The Service's mission is to provide the leadership to conserve, protect, and
' enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of all
people. Due to staffing limitations, we are unable to provide you with site-
specific comments at this time. However, the following recommendations should
help guide the planning process and facilitate our review of the project.

Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized
to the maximum extent practicaoie as outlined in the Clean water Act Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines. Bridge replacements should maintain natural water flows
and circulation regimes without scouring or impeding fish and wildlife passage.
Habitat fragmentation should be minimized by using the existing disturbed
corridor instead of a new alignment. Impact areas should be stabilized by using
appropriate erosion control devices and/or techniques. Wherever appropriate,
construction in sensitive areas should occur outside of anadromous fish spawning
and migratory bird nesting seasons.
We reserve the right to review any required federal or state permits at the time
of public notice issuance. Resource agency coordination should occur early in
the planning process to resolve land use conflicts and minimize delays.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental
documentation for this project include the following (the level of detail should
be commensurate with the degree of environmental impacts):
1. A clearly defined purpose and need for the proposed project including a
discussion of the project's independent utility;
2. An analysis of the alternatives to the proposed project that were
considered, including a no action alternative;
3. A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within the action
area of the proposed project which may be affected directly or
indirectly;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that
are to be impacted by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, and/or
draining. Wetland impact acreages should be differentiated by habitat
type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National Wetlands
Inventory. Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers;
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent,
that would be likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed
project. Also, an assessment should be included regarding the extent to
which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to natural
resources and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative
adverse effects;
6. Techniques which would be employed to design and construct wetland
crossings, relocate stream channels, and restore, enhance, or create
wetlands for compensatory mitigation;
7. Mitigation measures which would be employed to avoid, minimize, rectify,
reduce, or compensate for habitat value losses associated with the
project. These measures should include a detailed compensatory
mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered, threatened, and
candidate species that are known to occur in Bladen, Brunswick, Columbus,
Cumberland, Duplin, Durham, Greene, Pender, Pitt, Robeson, Scotland, Wayne, and
Wilson counties. Habitat requirements for the Federally-listed species in the
project area should be compared with the available habitat at the project site.
If suitable habitat is present within the action area of the project, field
surveys for the species should be performed, and survey methodologies and results
included in the environmental documentation for this project. In addition to
this guidance, the following information should be included in the environmental
document regarding protected species (the level of detail should be commensurate
with the degree of environmental impacts):
1. A specific description of the proposed action to be considered;
2. A description and accompanvinq map of the specific area used in the
analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts;
3. A description of the biology and status of the listed species and of the
associated habitat that may be affected by the action, including the
results of an onsite inspection;
4. An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed species and
associated habitat:
a. Direct and indirect impacts of the project on listed species.
Indirect effects are those that are caused by the proposed action
and are later in time but are still reasonably certain to occur;
b. A discussion of the environmental baseline which includes
interrelated, interdependent, past and present impacts of Federal,
State, and private activities in the project and cumulative effects
area;

1 c. Interrelated actions are those that are part of a larger action and
depend on the larger action for their justification;
d. Cumulative impacts of future State and private activities (not
requiring Federal agency involvement, that will be considered as
part of future Section 7 consultation);
' 5. Summary of evaluation criteria used as a measurement of potential effects;
6. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any listed
species or associated habitat including project proposals to
reduce/eliminate adverse effects;
7. Based on evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the project is
not likely to adversely affect or may affect threatened and endangered
species.
Candidate species are those plant and animal species for which the Service has
sufficient information on their biological status and threats to their survival
to propose them as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). Although candidate species receive no statutory protection under the ESA,
Federal agencies are required to informally confer with the Service on actions
' likely to jeopardize the continued existence of these species or that may destroy
or modify proposed critical habitat. Species of concern include those species
for which the Service does not have enough scientific information to support a
listing proposal or species which do not warrant listing at the present time.
Species of Concern receive no statutory protection under the ESA, but could
' become candidates in the future if additional scientific information becomes
available indicating they are endangered or threatened. Formal listing places
the species under the full protection of the ESA, and necessitates a new survey
if its status in the project corridor is unknown. Therefore, it would be prudent
for the project to avoid any adverse impact to candidate species or their
habitat. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for
information on species under State protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please
continue to advise us of the progress made in the planning process, including
your official determination of the impacts of this project.
1

Attachments
' cc: NCDEHNR-DEM
NCWRC
NMFS
FHWA
' USACE
EPA
1 FWS/R4/KDoak/KHD:3-26-96/919-856-4520 ext 19/wp:BMAR96.SCP

US Department
of Transportation
UnftW Stc?s
Coast Guard
Commander
Fifth Coast Guard Diatriot
Federal Building
431 Crawford Street
Portsmouth, VA 237 .5044
Staff Symbol: Owb )
Phone:
(804) 198-622
16590
20 Aug 96
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Korth Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
This responds to your letters of 5une 13, 1996, requesting our
concurrence that Coast Guard Bridge Permits will not be required
for the proposed replacements of Bridge No. 256 over the
Northeast Cape Fear River, Bridge No. 1 over Sturgeon Creek, and
Bridges No. 16 and 103 over the number River.
Section 107 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1982, Publio
Law 97-322, exempts bridge projects from Coast Guard Bridge
Permits when the bridge project crosses nontidal waters which are
not used, susceptible to use in their natural condition, or
susceptible to use by reasonable improvement as a means to
transport interstate or foreign commerce. We have determined
that each of these bridge projects will cross a section of
waterway which meets these conditions. Accordingly, Coast Guard
Bridge permits will not be required for any of these bridges.
The fact that Coast Guard Bridge Permits will not he required for
these projects does not receive you of the responsibility for
compliance with the requirements of any other Federal, State or
local agency who may have jurisdiction by law over any other
aapect of the projects.
If you have any questions concerning these comments, please feel
free to contact me at [phone].
,iz

Sincerely,
' V ?Z.
ANN 8. DEATON
Chief, Bridge Administration Section
19??, U By direction of the Commander
UG 2 Fifth Coast Guard District
1 13