19970504 Ver 1_Complete File_19970604

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
A _W VIVA
lILTT4
0-ft 0
0---
[D EHNR
June 27, 1997
Duplin County
DWQ Project # 970504
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Mr. Franklin Vick
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to permanently fill in
0.4 acres of wetlands or waters for the purpose of bridge replacement at NC 41 - 111, as you described in your
application dated 30 May 1997. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General
Water Quality Certification Numbers 3107 and 3127. These certifications allow you to use Nationwide Permit
Numbers 23 and 33 when they are issued by the Corps of Engineers. In addition, you should get any other federal,
state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion
Control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. This approval will expire
when the accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application except as modified
below. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. If total
wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as
described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions
listed in the attached certification and any additional conditions listed below. DOT shall follow guidance provided by
DWQ in our 27 May 1997 letter for minimizing damage to aquatic resources until a final policy is developed in
conjunction with DOT.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You
must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition which
conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box
27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a
hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If
you have any questions, please telephone John Domey at 919-733-1786.
;)InH?oward, Jr. P. i
7
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
Wilmington DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
970504.1tr
Division of Water Quality • Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycledl10% post consumer paper
r I
".. sing"•.
fr.• t
\IX
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMt:s B. HUNT )R. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
(JkATRNUR Ro. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
May 30, 1997
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1590
ATTN.: Mi. Cliff Winefordncr
Chief, South Section
Dear Sir:
V5
9
GARLAND B. GARRETT J R.
SECRETARY
i.: .; 19
91
SUBJECT: Duplin County, Replacement of Bridge No. 74 over Muddy Creek on
NC 41-111, Federal Project No. BRSTP-41(2), State Project
No. 8.1241601, T.I.P. No. B-2955.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. Bridge No 74 will be replaced at approximately the same location and roadway
elevation with a bridge approximately 46 meters (150 feet) long. Traffic will be
maintained during construction using a temporary on-site detour located east of the
existing bridge. Construction of the proposed project will have approximately 0.2
hectares (0.4 acres) of permanent impact and 0.7 hectares (1.73 acres) of temporary
impact. After constriction is complete the area used for the temporary detour will be
restored to the original contours and planted with appropriate wetland species.
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 Appendix A (B-23). The provisions of Section 330.4 and
Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate a 401 General Certification 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.
e
I
lFvou have any questions or need additional information please call jkls. Alice N. Gordon
at 711-78,44 Ext. 107.
Sincere y,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Ernest Jahnke, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington 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. J. Bowers, P.E., Division 3 Engineer
Mr. Jeff Ingham, P & E Project Planning Engineer
Duplin County
Bridge No. 74 on NC 41-111
Over Muddy Creek
Federal Project BRSTP-41(2)
State Project 8.1241601
TIP # B-2955
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
Date.p,-H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
3-?T -
Date Nicholas Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Duplin County
Bridge No. 74 on NC 41-111
Over Muddy Creek
Federal Project BRSTP-41(2)
State Project 8.1241601
TIP # B-2955
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
February 1997
Documentation Prepared in
Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Jeff
Proj ct lanning ngineer
Ille-, .*f- Z7110111-
Z'Z7- y-
Wayn lliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
' ?/, ? 2-28-97
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch

Duplin County
Bridge No. 74 on NC 41-111
Over Muddy Creek
Federal Project BRSTP-41(2)
State Project 8.1241601
TIP # B-2955
Bridge No. 74 is located in Duplin County on NC 41-111 crossing over Muddy
Creek. It is programmed in the 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
as a bridge replacement project. This project is part of the Federal Aid Bridge
Replacement Program and has been classified as a "Categorical Exclusion". No
substantial environmental impacts are expected.
Bridge No. 74 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 2 with a bridge
approximately 46 meters (150 feet) in length at approximately the same location and
roadway elevation as the existing bridge. Traffic will be maintained during construction
using a temporary on site detour located east of the existing bridge.
The new bridge will provide two 3.6 meter lanes with 1.0 meter Q foot) offsets.
The approaches will include two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes, 0.6 meter (2 foot) paved
shoulders, and 2.7 meter (9 foot) grassed shoulders to accommodate guardrail. The
grassed shoulder will taper to 1.8 meters (6 feet) where guardrail is not required.
Approach work on the new bridge will extend approximately 30 meters (100 feet) to
either side of the new bridge. Based on preliminary design work, the design speed should
be approximately 100 km/h (60 mph).
The estimated cost of the project is $ 1,000,000 including $ 963,900 in
construction costs and $ 36,100 in right of way costs. The estimated cost shown in the
1997-2003 TIP is $ 470,000.
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. All practical Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be
included and properly maintained during the entire life of the project.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of
dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States."
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401
Water Quality General Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Army Corps of
Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23.
After construction is complete, the area used for the temporary detour will be
restored to original contours and re-vegetated with native tree species.
If stream channel relocation is required, and if the stream relocation is greater than
30 meters (100 feet) or greater than 15 meters (>50 feet) on one side, consultation with
the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) will be required, per the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 USC 661-667d). Relocated streams will be
designed to have similar characteristics (depth, width, meanders, and substrate) as the
original stream.
NCDOT does not anticipate any design exceptions will be required.
NC 41-111 is classified as a Major Collector in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. Traffic volume is 3600 vehicles per day (VPD) and projected at
7300 VPD for the year 2020. Because there is no posted speed limit, the road is subject
to a statutory 55 mph speed limit. The road serves mostly through traffic from
Chinquapin and Beulaville.
The existing bridge was completed in 1949. It is 46 meters (151 feet) long.
There are approximately 3.6 meters (12 feet) of vertical clearance between the bridge
deck and streambed. The deck is 7.7 meters (25.4 feet) wide with 7.3 meters (24 feet) of
bridge roadway width. There are two lanes of traffic on the bridge.
According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of the
bridge is 35.5 out of a possible 100. Presently the bridge is posted 33 tons for all
vehicles.
The bridge is on good horizontal and vertical alignment. The pavement width on
the approaches to the bridge is 6.7 meters (22 feet). Shoulders on the approaches to the
bridge are approximately 1.8 meters (6 feet) wide.
The Traffic Engineering Branch indicates that no accidents have been reported
within the last three years in the vicinity of the project.
There are five school buses that each cross the bridge twice daily.
There are several utilities in the vicinity of the project. Power lines run
approximately 18 meters (60 feet) east of the roadway centerline and an underground
fiber optic cable runs approximately 9 meters (30 feet) west of the roadway centerline.
An extensive wetland area exists to the west of the road, north and south of the bridge,
and east of the road to the north of the bridge.
There are two "build" options considered in this document. They are as follows:
Alternate 1 would replace the existing bridge with a new 46 meter (150 foot) long
bridge. Traffic would be detoured along SR 1967 and SR 1964 during construction. In
order to utilize SR 1967 and SR 1964 as detour routes, an expenditure of $ 500,000
would be necessary for resurfacing and minor widening.
Alternate 2 (Recommended) would replace the existing bridge with a new
46 meter (150 foot) long bridge. Traffic would be maintained on site during construction
using a temporary detour bridge approximately 21 meters (70 feet) in length. This
temporary detour bridge would be located to the east of the existing bridge to minimize
impacts to wetland areas.
"Do-nothing" is not practical, requiring the eventual closing of the road as the
existing bridge completely deteriorates.
Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating bridge is neither practical nor
economical.
COMPONENT ALTERNATE] ALTERNATE 2
(Recommended)
New Bridge Structure $ 306,000 $ 306,000
Bridge Removal 26,300 26,300
Roadway & Approaches 177,700 177,700
Temporary Detour 0 327,500
Upgrade of secondary roads for use as detour 500,000 0
Engineering & Contingencies 90,000 125,600

Total Construction $ 1,100,000 $ 963,100
Right of Way $ 21,000 $ 36,900
Total Cost $ 1,121,000 $ 1,000,000
Bridge No. 74 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 2 with a bridge
approximately 46 meters (150 feet) in length at approximately the same location and
roadway elevation as the existing bridge. Traffic will be maintained using a temporary
on site detour during construction.
The new bridge will provide two 3.6 meter lanes with 1.0 meter (3 foot) offsets.
The approaches will include two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes, 0.6 meter (2 foot) paved
shoulders, and 2.7 meter (9 foot) grassed shoulders to accommodate guardrail. The
grassed shoulder will taper to 1.8 meters (6 feet) where guardrail is not required.
Approach work on the new bridge will extend approximately 30 meters (100 feet) to
either side of the new bridge. Based on preliminary design work, the design speed should
be approximately 100 km/h (60 mph).
Traffic will be maintained on site as shown in Figure 2. The temporary detour
will require a bridge 21 meters (70 feet) in length located approximately 16.8 meters
(55 feet) east of the existing structure. Approach work required for the temporary detour
alignment will extend approximately 183 meters (600 feet) to the north and
approximately 230 meters (750 feet) to the south of the stream.
NCDOT recommends Alternate 2 because it will avoid causing 1.9 kilometers
(1.2 miles) of additional travel for the 4100 vehicles per day estimated for the
construction year 1999. Of these vehicles, approximately 290 will be trucks. The
vehicles would incur user costs of approximately $ 400,000 during the construction
period, if the road is closed. The estimated cost of providing an on site detour is
approximately $ 375,000. The detour route shown in Figure 1 is on lower classification
level roads than NC 41-111, which is a major collector. These roads would not provide
adequate service for the vehicles using this collector. The selection of Alternative 2
eliminates the expenditure of approximately $ 500,000 for upgrading these roads.
The division engineer concurs with the Alternate 2 recommendation.
A. GENERAL
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an
inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
This project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope
and insignificant environmental consequences.
This bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality
of the human or natural environment by implementing the environmental commitments
listed in Section II of this document in addition to use of current NCDOT standards and
specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning
regulation. No change in land use is expected to result from construction of this project.
4
There are no hazardous waste impacts.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. There will be no
relocatees as a result of the project. Right-of-way acquisition will be limited.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not
expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
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.
The proposed bridge replacement project will not raise the existing flood levels or
have any significant adverse effect on the existing floodplain.
Utility impacts are expected to be low.
B. AIR AND NOISE
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.
The project is located in Duplin County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR part 51 is not
applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is
not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
The project will not significantly increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will not
have significant impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during
construction.
C. LAND USE & FARMLAND EFFECTS
The project area is heavily wooded and undeveloped. There are no urban land
uses located in the project area.
In compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 1981, the U. S.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) was asked to determine whether project being
considered will impact prime or important farmland soils. The SCS responded that the
project will not impact prime or important farmland soils. The project will result in a
small conversion of land, but the area to be converted is wooded and void of agricultural
uses.
D. HISTORICAL EFFECTS & ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS
Upon review of area photographs, aerial photographs, and cultural resources
databases, the Department of Cultural Resources (DCR) has indicated that they "are
aware of no historic structures within the area of potential effect." They therefore
recommend no historic architectural surveys be conducted.
The DCR also indicated that "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." They therefore recommend no archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
E. NATURAL RESOURCES
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Physiography and Soils
Duplin County lies within the south-central portion of the Coastal Plain
physiographic province. The northwestern portion of the county is in the middle Coastal
Plain, and the balance of the county lies in the lower Coastal Plain. The boundary runs
generally from the southwest to the northeast. Occasionally the division between the two
is clearly defined by marine terrace escarpments.
The project lies on the largest or the four marine terraces in Duplin County, the
Wicomico terrace. The elevation of this terraced area ranges from 3 meters (10 feet)
where it joins the Chowan terrace in the southern portion of the county to about 15 meters
(50 feet) at the base of the escarpment that separates it from the Sunderland terrace to the
northwest. The project area is at an elevation of approximately 4 meters (12 feet).
The land is generally flat, with little difference even between stream bottoms and
the adjacent uplands. The surface of the terrace consists of unconsolidated clays, sands,
and gravel.
The only soil type listed in the project area is Sd, or Swamp (SCS 1959). This
land type consists of very poorly drained areas on the first bottoms along large and small
streams. The parent material is recent alluvial deposits, and in most places is stratified,
but without a uniform sequence. Swamp soils can have a large range of texture from fine
sand to sandy clay loam and may change vertically or horizontally within short distances.
This soil is not listed as a hydric soil.
Water Resources
One water resource, Muddy Creek, will be impacted by the subject project.
Muddy Creek is a typical Coastal Plain blackwater stream. It is 3-5 meters (10-15 feet)
wide and up to 2 meters (6 feet) deep. Substrates are a mix of sand, silt, and small gravel,
and there is an abundance of allochthonous organic material in the form of leaf packs and
woody debris. As is typical of Coastal Plain streams, there is a relatively well-defined
channel with extensive floodplain wetlands fanning out upstream and downstream of the
bridge. Because of its geographic location and morphological characteristics, Muddy
Creek is considered by the N.C. Department of Environment Health and Natural
Resources (DEHNR), Division of Marine Fisheries, to be anadromous fish spawning
habitat.
Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of Water
Quality (DWQ). The best usage classification for unnamed tributaries is the same as that
applied to the named section into which the unnamed tributary flows. This classification
scheme allows for protection of waters downstream from unnamed and intermittent
streams. The Best Usage Classification for Muddy Creek (DEM index 18-74-25) is C,
with the supplemental classification of Sw. Class C refers to waters suitable for aquatic
life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Sw
(Swamp water) is a supplemental water classification including waters which have low
velocities and other natural characteristics which are different from adjacent streams. No
High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-1 or WS-11), or Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 miles) of the project area.
Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed by DWQ
and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses
long term trends in water quality. The program assesses water quality by sampling for
selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites.
Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species
richness and overall biomass of these organisms are reflections of water quality. No
BMAN sites occur within the project vicinity.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger
is required to register for a permit. There are no NPDES permitted dischargers within the
project vicinity.
Anticipated Impacts To Water Resources
Potential impacts to water resources include increased sedimentation, decreases of
dissolved oxygen, and changes in temperature which may result from construction in and
around the water bodies in the project area.
Sedimentation is the most serious threat to the waters impacted by the proposed
action. Not only is sedimentation detrimental to the aquatic ecosystem, but changes in
physical characteristics of the stream also occur. Sedimentation of the stream channel
causes changes in flow rate and stream course, which may lead to increased streambank
scour and erosion. Sedimentation also leads to increased turbidity of the water column.
7
Removal of streamside canopy and removaliburial of aquatic vegetation results in
numerous impacts. Streamside vegetation is crucial for maintaining streambank stability,
controlling erosion and buffering water temperature, as well as contributing a significant
food source to the stream ecosystem. Aquatic vegetation serves an important role in the
stream ecosystem as food and shelter, as well as contributing oxygen to the water and
stabilizing the bottom sediments.
Additionally, modification of the forested communities adjacent to the water
bodies crossed can disrupt the hydrological continuity of those stream systems. Clearing
and grading of these communities will cause changes in ground and surface water
exchanges between the associated streams. Landscape modification of the forested
communities will reduce the natural storage and infiltration of rainwater in the
community, which leads to increased peak stream flow and a greater potential for toxins
washed from impermeable surfaces to reach the stream.
Numerous pollutants have been identified in highway runoff, including various
metals (lead, zinc, iron etc.), nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus) and petroleum (Gupta et al.
1981). The sources of these runoff constituents range from construction and maintenance
activities, to daily vehicular use. The toxicity of highway runoff to aquatic ecosystems is
poorly understood. Some species demonstrate little sensitivity to highway runoff
exposure, while other species are much more sensitive. The levels of the toxins and the
duration of the exposure are major factors determining the ecosystem's response to
runoff. Pollutant concentrations of receiving waters are directly related to traffic volume.
It is apparent that highway runoff can significantly degrade the quality of the receiving
water bodies, which in turn significantly affects the ecosystems present.
Recommendations
Because Muddy Creek is anadromous fish spawning habitat, the "Draft Guidelines
for Anadromous Fish Passage at Highway Crossings" must be followed. In addition, the
following recommended methods to reduce sedimentation and/or pollutant loads have
been shown to be efficient and cost effective, and will be implemented to protect aquatic
resources.
• Strict enforcement of sedimentation control Best Management Practices (BMP's) for
the protection of surface waters during the entire life of the project
• Reduction of clearing and grubbing activity, particularly in riparian areas
• Reduction/elimination of direct discharge into streams
• Curb & gutter elimination
• Reduction of runoff velocity
• Re-establishment of vegetation on exposed areas
• Litter control
The use of any number of these methods will be effective in reducing water
quality degradation resulting from project construction. Other structural methods which
are effective at sedimentation/pollutant reduction which may be considered include:
• Wet detention basins
• Dry extended detention basins
• Infiltration systems
• Wetland creation
If stream channel relocation is required for any of the above mentioned impacts,
and if the stream relocation is greater than 30 meters (100 feet) or greater than 15 meters
(>50 feet) on one side, consultation with the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC)
will be required, per the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 USC
661-667d). Relocated streams will be designed to have similar characteristics (depth,
width, meanders and substrate) as the original stream. This also includes
re-establishment of streamside vegetation.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Terrestrial Communities
There are two distinct terrestrial communities identified within the project area:
maintained roadside and blackwater swamp; however, there is always some degree of
overlap between communities. Community composition is reflective of the
physiography, topography, and current and prior land uses of the area. All community
types have had some degree of past, or continued human disturbance. As a result of
disturbances, changes in vegetative dominance often occur within the community types.
Numerous terrestrial animals are highly adaptive and populate a variety of
habitats, therefore many of the species mentioned may occur in any number of the
different community types described. Other animals are tolerant of a narrow range of
environmental conditions and may be limited to a particular habitat type. These species
are the most vulnerable to habitat disturbance.
Maintained Roadside Community
The disturbed community consists of areas along roadways which have been
heavily impacted and maintained by human development activities. Such areas extend
out approximately 5 meters (15 feet) on both sides of the existing roadway and border
young upland forests outside the ROW. Included also in this community is the ecotone
area that exists between the heavily maintained areas, and the unmaintained forests. This
ecotone area is less maintained and includes elements of both the heavily disturbed
community, and the undisturbed upland areas. Significant soil disturbance and
compaction, along with frequent mowing or herbicide application, keep this community
in an early successional state. Common herbaceous species in this community include
crown grass, crab grass, bluet, and dog fennel.
Wildlife found in this community type is limited and consists primarily of wide-
ranging, adaptable species. Other animals may use this area as a corridor for travel
between less disturbed habitats, or as a foraging area. Reptiles commonly found in
disturbed habitats include the eastern garter snake and black racer. Birds potentially
found in disturbed habitats include American robin, Carolina chickadee, mourning dove,
and American kestrel. Mammalian species likely to frequent disturbed habitats include
eastern cottontail, white-footed mouse, and hispid cotton rat.
Cypress Gum Swamp Community
The blackwater cypress gum swamp and its associated floodplain community
contains plants such as bald cypress, pond cypress, sycamore, and butternut hickory.
Aquatic and amphibious species take advantage of the semi-permanent and
shallow permanent waters associated with blackwater swamps. Many crayfish species
(Decapoda) are able to occupy ditches and depressions that are seasonally de-watered by
burrowing into moist soil near the temporary water source. These areas also support
amphibian reproduction and are likely used by southern cricket frogs and green tree frogs.
Some fish find suitable habitat in these areas, and may even find refuge in the form of
pools in which to wait out low or no flow events. Piscine species such as the eastern
mosquitofish and the eastern mudminnow are able to survive the low oxygen conditions
which accompany the warm, stagnant water which occur in these areas.
Aquatic Communities
Muddy Creek is a coastal plain blackwater stream community which is
characterized by a sandy, silty substrate and warm, clear, tannin stained water. Flow
varies seasonally and with precipitation intensity. These streams are very low gradient
and are generally slow flowing. Scattered woody debris occurs within the channel and
along the shoreline. Dominant fauna found in these rivers or along the shoreline includes
a variety of aquatic and semiaquatic species. No fish were observed during the site visit,
but the stream could provide habitat for resident species such as shiners, darters, bluegill,
and largemouth bass. Other piscine inhabitants include species less sensitive to low
oxygen conditions such as longnose gar, bowfin, redfin pickerel, and chain pickerel.
Amphibians and reptiles expected to occur in this community include dwarf mudpuppy,
lesser siren, greater siren, and northern water snake.
10
Terrestrial Community Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have
the potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts
to the natural resources in terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary
and permanent impacts are considered here as well.
The plant communities found along the project alignment serve as shelter, nesting
and foraging habitat for numerous species of wildlife. Loss of habitat initially displaces
faunal organisms from the area, forcing them to concentrate into a smaller area, which
causes over-utilization and degradation of the habitat. This ultimately lowers the carrying
capacity of the remaining habitat and is manifested in some species as becoming more
susceptible to disease, predation, and starvation.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of each
community present in the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Estimated impacts are derived using the
entire proposed ROW width of 46 meters (150 feet), and a total project length of
518 meters (1700 feet). Often, project construction does not require the entire right of
way; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less. Both alternates will impact the
disturbed roadside habitat and the blackwater swamp communities. Alternate 1,
replacement of the bridge in place with an off site detour on existing roads will impact
0.4 hectares (1.0 acre) of disturbed roadside habitat, and 0.2 hectares (0.4 acres) of
blackwater swamp. Alternate 2, replacement of the bridge in place with an on site detour
will impact 0.7 hectares (1.7 acres) of disturbed roadside habitat (0.4 hectares [1.0 acre]
of that is permanent impact), and 0.9 hectares (2.3 acres) of blackwater swamp
community (0.2 hectares [0.4 acres] of which is permanent impact). The disturbed
roadside community will be replaced by an equivalent community through re-vegetation
at project completion.
Aquatic Community Impacts
The aquatic environment serves as a major food source for many terrestrial
organisms such as raccoons, various species of snakes, birds, turtles, and amphibians. It
also serves as a means of predator avoidance for many animals.
Benthic non-mobile organisms, such as filter and deposit feeders, and macro and
micro alga, are particularly sensitive to construction activities such as dredging, filling,
pile driving operations, and slope stabilization. These construction activities physically
disturb the substrate, resulting in loss of sessile benthic organisms. Many of these aquatic
organisms are slow to recover, or repopulate an area, because they require a stabilized
substrate for attachment. Substrate stability may take a long time to develop, therefore,
changes in community composition will occur.
Populations of photosynthetic species, the primary producers in the food chain,
can be greatly effected by siltation. The increased amount of suspended particles in the
water column reduces the photosynthetic ability, by absorbing available light. Clogging
of feeding apparati of suspension feeders and burial of newly settled larvae of these
organisms are other affects of siltation. These species are often primary consumers in the
food chain, and are a major step in the aquatic food web. Impacts to these organisms may
directly effect organisms higher in the food chain, such as fish, amphibians, reptiles,
birds, and mammals.
Mobile aquatic organisms may escape some of the effects of siltation, however
gills of fish, crustaceans and larval amphibian and insect forms can become clogged and
dysfunctional as a result of sedimentation. Spawning habitats for these mobile species
may become filled with sediment, diminishing reproductive success and inevitably
reducing populations.
Habitat disturbance and sedimentation are extremely detrimental to aquatic
ecosystems. Best Management Practices (BMP's) for protection of surface waters, must
be strictly adhered to, to ensure the biological integrity of the water bodies impacted by
this project.
SPECIAL TOPICS
Waters of the United States
Potential wetland communities were evaluated using the criteria specified in the
1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual". For an area to be considered a
"wetland", the following three specifications must be met; 1) presence of hydric soils,
2) presence of hydrophytic vegetation, and 3) evidence of hydrology, including; saturated
soils, stained leaves, oxidized rhizospheres, matted vegetation, high water marks on trees,
buttressed tree bases and surface roots.
Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part
328.3. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated or saturated
by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in
saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
12
Waters of the United States will be impacted by the subject project. Field surveys
revealed that wetlands are present in the project area, with all three of the wetland
parameters present. Soils consist of clay loam and have a color of l OYR 3/1 from
0-6 inches, and a color of IOYR 4/1 from 6-12 inches mottling is present, but the mottles
are few and faint. Evidence of hydrology includes sediment deposits on leaves drainage
patterns, and buttressed tree trunks. There is an abundance of hydrophytic vegetation in
the project area including bald cypress, pond cypress, river birch, orange jewelweed,
Japanese grass, and false nettle. Alternate 1 will impact approximately 0.2 hectares
(0.4 acres) of blackwater swamp community. Alternate 2 will impact approximately
0.9 hectares (2.3 acres) of blackwater swamp.
Permits And Mitigation
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401
Water Quality General Certification is also required. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or
licensed activity that may result in a discharge into waters of the United States. The
issuance of a 401 permit from DEM is a prerequisite to issuance Section 404 Permit.
This project will require a 401 Water Quality General Certification from the
Division of Environmental Management (DEM) prior to the issuance of the Nationwide
permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water
certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge
to the 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 resulting from the proposed project. This permit
authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in
whole, or part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or department
has determined the pursuant to the council on environmental quality regulation for
implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act:
(1) that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment,
and;
(2) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency'
or department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
The COE District Engineer is required to determine whether any activity, covered
by the General Permitting Process, will result in more than minimal adverse
environmental effects. If the District Engineer determines that the adverse effects of the
13
proposed work are more than minimal, then the engineer will notify the prospective
permittee either:
(1) that the project does not qualify for authorization under nationwide permit and
that the permittee seek authorization under a pre-discharger notification (PDN) or
an individual permit, or;
(2) that the project is authorized under the nationwide permit subject to the permittee
submitting a mitigation proposal that would reduce the adverse environmental
effects to the minimal level.
This project will likely be authorized under a nationwide permit; however, mitigation for
impacts to wetlands and surface waters may be required by the COE due to the quality of
the wetlands likely to be impacted by the project.
Wetland Impact Avoidance
The COE has adopted, through the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ), a
wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to maintain and restore the chemical,
biological, and physical integrity of Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands.
Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts
(to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time, and
compensating for impacts (40 CFR) (1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance,
minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of
averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE,
in determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts,
such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and
practicable in terms of cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project
purposes. Alternate 1 is the preferred alternate from a biological standpoint because the
off site detour would avoid the wetland impacts that Alternate 2 would cause.
Impact Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to
reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps
will be required through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization
typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the
reduction of ROW widths and fill slopes.
Additional means to minimize impacts to the waters and wetlands crossed by the
proposed project include: strict enforcement of BMPs for the protection of surface waters
14
during the entire life of the project; reduction of clearing and grubbing activity,
particularly in riparian areas; reduction or elimination of direct discharge into streams;
reduction of runoff velocity; re-establishment of vegetation on exposed areas, with
prudent pesticide and herbicide management; minimization of in-stream activity and litter
and debris control.
Wetland Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to
Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be
achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate
and practicable minimization has occurred. Compensatory actions often include
restoration, creation, and enhancement of Waters of the United States. Such actions
should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site. After
construction is complete, the area used for the temporary detour will be replaced by an
equivalent community through re-vegetation.
Rare and Protected Species
Threatened or endangered species are species whose populations are in decline
and which face probable extinction in the near future without strict conservation
management. Federal law under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended,
protects plant and animal species which have been classified as Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), or Proposed Threatened (PT). Provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the ESA require that any action which is likely to adversely
affect such federally classified species be subject to review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS). Other potentially endangered species may receive additional protection
under separate state laws. In North Carolina, protection of endangered species falls under
the N.C. State Endangered Species Act and the N.C. Plant Protection and Conservation
Act of 1979, administered and enforced by the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(WRC) and the N.C. Department of Agriculture, respectively.
Federally-Protected Species
As of 5 February 1997, the FWS lists two federally-protected species for Duplin
County (Table 1). A brief description of the characteristics and habitat requirements of
each species follows Table 1, along with a conclusion regarding potential project impacts.
15
Table 1. Federally-Protected Species for Duplin County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E
Alligator mississippiensis American alligator T(S/A)
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or
a significant portion of its range).
T(S/A) Species that is threatened due to similarity of experience with other rare species
and is listed for its protection.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker)
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
ENDANGERED
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is entirely black
and white except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The back of
the RCW is black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this
woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek patch
surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf
pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at
least 50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be
appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in trees that are >60 years
old and are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age. The foraging range of the
RCW is up to 200 hectares (500 acres). This acreage must be contiguous with suitable
nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that
are infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies
from 3.6-30.3 meters (12-100 feet) above the ground and average 9.1- 15.7 meters
(30-50 feet) high. They can be identified by a large incrustation of running sap that
surrounds the tree. The RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch
approximately 38 days later.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION
NO EFFECT
No nesting or foraging habitat, in the form of pine stands 30 years of age or older
with sparse undergrowth, was present within the project. The only forested habitat
potentially disturbed by this project is a blackwater swamp, and is not suitable habitat for
red-cockaded woodpeckers. In addition, the NCNHP database of rare species and unique
habitats was reviewed and revealed no records of red-cockaded woodpeckers occurring
within 0.8 kilometers (0.5 miles). Therefore the subject project will not affect this
species.
16
Alligator mississippiensis (American alligator) THREATENED (S/A)
The American alligator is classified as Threatened (S/A), which signifies that the
"species is threatened due to similarity of experience with other rare species and is listed
for its protection." The alligator itself is not biologically endangered or threatened and is
not subject to section 7 consultation. The similar species, the American crocodile, is not
found in North Carolina.
17
1953
.?
07
.?
Inqualim Cat'
4b Rose Hill 2
41 14 roomy Cieek
Studied Detour Route
??..
• Jackson, 1804 • 1.9
Store 804
q 1802 - `LI
Quinns Store
V' '1
N ; ^ \
1966 h 6 1802
196d 18 44 1800
1813 -'? 1801
41 , ?• ! 1800 1812
2 .
1 , Creek
.? Bethal .7 h .2
1984 196 Church _ Lym\ n
-??
1x02
1968 ? \ 5 p
1964 1816
?s 198 1 111 1.3
.3+ .2. 5 tals i
?`r Q 1817
1.0 ^•
50 FPS
CC
50 Chinquapin a • v •r
41 ?
181
- 10' 181 BRIDGE NO. 74 1816 ?S ? ? . • 1818
1970 CO 1801
? F
00
181
Zb
.2
,1a .6) 1818 7
Cl) so 2
c 1971 1715 1715
'c yAr
More
41 \ I,
I
RI??ER
1970
S 182
v •
1972 ?•
?? 0
North Carolina Department Of
s Transportation
`- ' Planning & Environmental Branch
DUPLIN COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 74 ON NC 41-111
OVER MUDDY CREEK
B-2955
0 Idlometers 1.6 Idlometers 3.2
Figure 1
0 miles 1 miles 2

CENTER OF BRIDGE LOOKING SOUTH
i? I I I I I? I I I ar ? f
FIGURE 3
. , r

j
r .

? 3
{3{
J
I
y
I
]
i
t ?
i

s

i
? ?I
I

r:

FIGURE 4
?. • ` f
ATTACHMENTS
try t
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
May 9, 1996
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration V Q
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
` Q ?qqb
Re: Replace Bridge 74 on NC 41-111 over Muddy ?p•(
Creek, Duplin County, B-2955, State Project
8.124160 1, Federal Aid Project BRSTP-41(2), O??\5\
ER 96-8727
Dear Mr. Graf:
On May 8, 1996, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning the above
project. We reported our available information on historic architectural and
archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations. NCDOT
provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
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.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 gODI
3
y ,
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw /
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
.p
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
r / r
TO: REP. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
P
yI
R.c q c ?qM S l
F
RO
M
j
1 REF. NO. Oil ROOM, BLDG.
(
,
/
+
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ML ? PLR YOUR REQUEST -
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? ,FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND LEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION _-
? PLEASE ANSWER ? :FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
?.. TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ?INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

Z v f
.,.-
r '
yy RECEIVED IVED
yT? .. ST
MAY 2 Z 1996
_ EW"'N
? ?ti1ENTAl SCIENCES
mR,?
STATE oI= NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAW.s B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
60VI RNOR P.O. ROx 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 S1VRE IARY
May 16, 1996
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR - Water Quality Lab
FROM: Jeff Ingham
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: NC 41-111, Duplin County, Replacement of Bridge No. 74
over Muddy Creek, State Project 8.1241601 F. A. Project
BRSTP-41(2), B-2955
A scoping meeting for the subject bridge was held in the Transportation
Building on May 8, 1996.
The following people were in attendance:
Roland Robinson Roadway Design
Don Sellers
Charles Pope
Lanette Cook
Ray McIntyre
Jerry Snead
Tania Sanders
Tatia White
Debbie Bevin
Tom Tarleton
Jeff Ingham
John Williams
Right-of-Way
Structure Design
Program Development
Program Development
Hydraulics
Traffic Engineering
Traffic Engineering
State Historic Preservation Office
Location & Surveys
Planning & Environmental
Planning & Environmental
The following comments were either called in or given at the meeting:
Eric Galamb of DEM stated that the waters of Muddy Creek are Class C
Swamp in the project area. He commented that if a temporary structure is
used, it should be completely removed and the area impacted returned to
pre-construction contours and revegetated. He requested normal soil and
erosion control measures.
David Cox of the Wildlife Resource Commission recommended that the
structure be replaced with a new bridge. He asked that all efforts be made
to minimize wetland impacts. He recommended standard sedimentation and
erosion control measures.
-0
May 16, 1996
Page 2
Jerry Snead of Hydraulics recommended that the existing bridge be
replaced with a bridge approximately 46 meters (150 feet) in length at the
existing location with approximately the same roadway elevation. A temporary
detour would require construction of a bridge approximately 21 meters (70
feet) in length with a roadway elevation approximately 1 meter (3 feet) lower
than the existing bridge. This bridge should be located to the east of the
existing bridge to minimize impacts to wetland areas.
The division construction engineer indicated a preference for
maintaining traffic using an on-site detour located to the east side of the
existing bridge. Road closure at this location is not recommended due to
narrow 5.5 meter (18 foot) pavements and poor alignments of alternate routes,
as well as the high volume of trucks and cars on this road.
Debbie Bevin of SHPO recommended that no surveys be done for this
project.
DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATES
Alternate 1: Replace the existing bridge with a bridge approximately 46
meters (150 feet) in length, at approximately the same
elevation and location as the existing bridge. Traffic will
be maintained with an on-site detour to the east of the
existing bridge during construction. This detour will require
construction of a bridge 21 meters (70 feet) in length with a
roadway elevation approximately 1 meter (3 feet) lower than
the existing bridge.
BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE: 5-15-96
TIP PROJECT B-2955 DIVISION 3
STATE PROJECT 8.1241601 COUNTY Duplin
F. A. PROJECT BRSTP-41(2) ROUTE NC 41-111
SCHEDULE: Right of way: 2-20-98 Construction: 5-18-99
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X
STRUCTURES
EXISTING BRIDGE NO. 74
LENGTH 46 METERS; WIDTH 7.7 -METERS
150 FEET 15.4 FEET
NEW STRUCTURE
LENGTH 46 METERS; WIDTH 9.1 METERS
150 FEET 30 FEET
COSTS
TIP ESTIMATE
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ....................................... $ 450,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ....................................... + $ 20,000
TIP TOTAL COST ...................................... $ 470,000
CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE
Expected to be completed by June 1996.
TRAFFIC
Average Daily Traffic: (1996) 3,600 VPD, (2020) 7,300 VPD
4% Dual, 3% TTST, 10% DIR, 60% DHV
CLASSIFICATION: Major Collector
r'?.,. STATF° 4,
r 3
STATE OE NORTI-I CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAWS B. HUNT )R. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARREFT JR.
GuVITNO R L.O. BOX 25201, RALFIGI I, N.C. 27011-5201 SICRUTARY
April 9, 1996
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR - Water Quality Lab
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheet for Bridge No. 74 on NC 41-111 in
Duplin County over Muddy Creek, B-2955
Attached for your review and comments is the scoping sheet for the
subject project (see attached map for project location). The purpose of this
sheet 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 May 8, 1996 at 10:00 a.m. in the Planning and Environmental
Branch Conference Room (Room 434). 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
Jeff Ingham, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7844, Ext. 236.
JI/rfm
y? el f 1n ? ?° ?z z
Attachments S
>J
??9ti y??f? ?? kv
9

1g -7S -2-5-
N
BRIDGE PROJECT
SCOPING SHEET
TIP PROJECT
STATE PROJECT
F. A. PROJECT
B-2955
DATE: 4-8-96
DIVISION 3
COUNTY Duplin
ROUTE NC 41-111
BRSTP-41(2)
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Replace Bridge No. 74 on NC 41-111 over Muddy
Creek in Duplin County.
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X
EXISTING LENGTH 46 METERS; WIDTH 7.6 METERS
STRUCTURE: 151 FEET 25 FEET
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ...................................... $ 450,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ...................................... + $ 20,000
TIP TOTAL COST .................................... $ 470,000
CLASSIFICATION: Major Collector

5453 IV NE 244 471300 SEULAVILLE 7.2 KM 146
242 (BEULAVILLE) -
•'-
1964 BNf 1813) 1802 ••0
41 \
4tlE
effi
4.5 lip
-10
A20
??? 21.0
13.5
/. 0.(1961,' - I1L° BM ?O , f?
18.5 _
• ?? 'i ail - i ? e ? o°O ' r /- -? -
'Ii. 0
P ( 196,.
"Cems - -,, i
I
i? Radlo' ,..
(1802) Tower ?..
>' 1
00,
1966 ? ? ?? - _
BM X13.3 -- BM
- I i
18.5 1
r
d
10
- - 15.5
I
X1817
1001)
4 4 ?• - BM - -
Parker. - 14.8',
11.5 em I ::(?.efTl - - UC' I
•-_'?i: BMA
-? . 13.0 Chinquapin
-:? _ = --
0000 .
0000 11 117 ?; 4 1
.`
.` 1 Rose Hill hinciuspift Cat'
.`
.`
14 Crook
41 -We 2
Jackson, 1804 1.9
Store
1802 ,,1804 !!'1
q ,
Q uinns Store
1966 h 6 1802 18
E•
1964 \? 1 14 1800
1613 1801
•
41 • 1800 `T 1812
1953 1 1 1 ,• 12
• , Creek
0 i .7 .? ti Bethal .2
1984 1967 ~ Church Lyman ?
A
s ?bZ? 1 \
? . 1.5
1968 1802 ?, 5
1964 1816 a
198 111 1.3
`r 5 c? -0 i
.3 + .2 1815 ?
9S / 6 1817
50 ip$ i6 1.0 ^ .
.w
50 Chinquapin ',.? 9 •
181 181 y
1820' 1816
BRIDGE NO.74
818
1970 'CO 1 cv 1801
M
1818 7
50 'o - 2.1
Cs, 1971 1715 1715
Ar
e
ess , ;}? '? Mar
41
.6 1 g2 `` North Carolina Department Of
v Transportation
827 ?s Planning & Environmental Branch
2.1 1972
DUPLIN COUNTY
RIVER REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 74 ON NC 41-111
1970 OVER MUDDY CREEK
B-2955
0 kilometers 1.6 Idlometers 3.2
Figure 1
n ...n.e t ...;t.? 7
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Division
November 20, 1997
u J9-99
Action fD No. 199706490, Replace Bridge No. 74 over Muddy Creek, on NC 41/NC 111,
Duplin County, North Carolina. TIP B-2955, State Project No! . 24 01
Mr. Frank Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Reference your letter dated May 30, 1997, and the attached project planning report
describing the above referenced project. According to the report, the North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace the existing bridge at its present location and
divert traffic onto an on-site temporary detour. Permanent impacts to wetlands will be 0.4 acres
and temporary impacts associated with the detour will be 1.7 acres. In addition, the area used for
the temporary detour will be restored to original grade and revegetated with "native tree
species".
For the purposes of the Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program, the "December 13, 1996,
Federal Register, Final Notice of Issuance, Reissuance, and Modification of Nationwide Permits
(61 FR 65874)" listed nationwide permits. Authorization, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, was provided for activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole or in part, by another
Federal agency or department where that agency or department has determined, pursuant to the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulation for the Implementing the Procedural
Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR Part 1500 et seq.), that the
activity, work or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental documentation because
it is included within a category of actions which neither individually nor cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment, and the Office of the Chief of Engineers (ATTN:
CECW-OR) has been furnished notice of the agency's or department's application for the
categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination.
Your work is authorized by this nationwide permit provided it is accomplished in strict
accordance with the enclosed conditions and provided you receive a Section 401 water quality
certification from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) and, in the coastal
-2-
area, a consistency determination from the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
(NCDCM). You should contact Mr. John Dorney, telephone [phone], regarding water
quality certification, and Mr. Steve Benton, telephone [phone], regarding consistency
determination. This nationwide permit does not relieve you of the responsibility to obtain other
required State or local approval.
This verification will be valid for two (2) years from the date of this letter unless the
nationwide authorization is modified, reissued or revoked. This verification will remain valid
for the two (2) years if, during that period, the nationwide permit is reissued without
modification or the activity complies with any subsequent modification. If during the two (2)
years, the nationwide permit authorization expires or is suspended or revoked; such that the
activity would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit,
activities which have commenced or are under contract to commence, in reliance upon this
nationwide permit, will remain authorized. This is provided the activity is completed within
twelve (12) months of the date of the nationwide permit's expiration, modification or revocation.
We have evaluated potential impacts of your activity, and we have determined that your
proposal will not likely have an adverse affect on any endangered species.
When you have completed your work and any required mitigation, please sign and return
the enclosed certification form.
Questions or comments may be addressed to the undersigned in the Wilmington
Regulatory Field Office, telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
Scott McLendon
Regulatory Project Manager
Enclosures
Copies Furnished (without enclosures):
Mr. John Hefner, Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607