20011824 Ver 1_Complete File_20011210

MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
\ VA9 C
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
November 13, 2001
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Mr. Dave Timpy
NCDOT Coordinator
0-11824
1PLYNDO
SECRETARY

Subject: NWP 23 request for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 65 over
Northeast Cape Fear River on NC 41-50, Duplin County, Federal Aid
Project No. BRSTP-41(3), State Project No. 8.124200 1, TIP Project No.
B-2954.
Dear Sir:
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. Bridge No. 65 will replaced with a new structure approximately 50 feet (15.2
meters) to the north of the existing structure. It will require new alignment of NC 41-50
of 1010 feet (308 meters) to the west and 870 feet (265 meters) to the east. The new
bridge structure will be approximately 300 feet (91.5 meters) long and 32 feet (9.6
meters) wide with two 12-foot (3.6 meter) lanes and 4-foot (1.2 meter) offsets. Impacts
to jurisdictional waters are summarized in the attached table, sheet 9 of 10. As stated in
the environmental commitments, the existing bridge and approaches will be removed,
graded to match the natural elevations, and replanted with native 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 Nationwide Permit 23 in
accordance with the Federal Register of December 13, 1996, part VII, Volume 61,
Number 241.
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 and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS - - 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 2769$-1548
f
As requested in comments from NCWRC during the planning process and stated in the
environmental commitments of the planning document, an in-stream work moratorium
will be observed from February 1 to April 30 to avoid impacts on fish spawning.
If you have any questions of need additional information, please call Mrs. LeiLani Paugh
at 733-1194.
Sincerely,
CaL 'ir IL
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/ attachment
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Tim Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachment
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Burt Tasaico, P.E., Programming and TIP
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Byron Moore, Roadside Environmental
Mr. H. Allen Pope, PE Division 3 Engineer
Ms. Alethia Raynor, PD&EA Planning Engineer
Ms. LeiLani Paugh, Natural Systems Specialist
y

V
% 1411 1802 f ??
r
/ ?
¦ Betha li
Church
r
Jaa6A
!?,
1954 1 1 1

ODD
50 - 0?

aZ
,8,g r" z
Chinquapin
?
1820

50
PROJ
41
Maready

ETCH MAP SHOWING THE VICINITY OF STATE PROJECT B-2954
3
A
if
N. C. DEPT, OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
VICINITY DUPLIN COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1242001 (B2954)
MAPS BRIDGE '765 ON NC 41-50
OVER NE CAPE FEAR RIVER
SHEET OF I D
r

LEGEND

-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED BRIDGE
L

W?± WETLAND
WETLAND

PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
® DENOTES FILL IN PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
WETLAND
® DENOTES FILL IN (DASHED LINES DENOTE
EXISTNG STRUCTURES)
SURFACE WATER
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND) SINGLE TREE
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND t WOODS LINE

® DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
¦ DRAINAGE INLET
DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE ROOTWAD
WATER
• _ •
» DENOTES MECHANIZED
•
•' •' » CLEARING

E F- FLOW DIRECTION RIP RAP
B
TOP OF BANK
'
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
WE_ - EDGE OF WATER O
5 OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
_ -? - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- -F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
-A
Alk-- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG- - NATURAL GROUND
- -PL - PROPERTY LINE
-TOE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-PDE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB - EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- -0- - - - WATER SURFACE
X LIVE STAKES
X
X
TATION
X
X N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPOR
E?D BOULDER DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DUPLIN COUNTY
--- COIR FIBER ROLLS
PROJECT: 8.1242001 (B2954)
BRIDGE U65 ON NC 41-50
OVER NE CAPE FEAR RIVER
SHEET I OF 10
MAr?y??NE
oofoz
f
? r
I ?
I ?
I I
I
;I I
I
I
U I v~i
Z I WI
? I I
z I
a ?( I
a II
II
II
II
11
11
I I i i
I I ? I
? I I r
I {
1 I ?
! I I
I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
II ? ?
I
I / I
I / ?I
I ? ?I
I ( i_
I I I
I I I
I
I
o ? I
I?? I
I I I
I ? I
i I I
i
r I I
? I I
I I
II I
f I
I
I 1 I
I 1 I
I 1? I

0
Ln
N_
O
S
O
Ln
O n
W
J
Ln Q
N U
N
O
Ln
-3N7HJ1dW - QOf 50
z
V I
a
z
w
0
z I
J I
G

00
ti
rn
4
O
11
11
11
1

I
I
I
zn
I
I
I
I
4
MATCHLINE?
F w o
I \ ? a 3 F o??
I I 1 j z?? o z w p
UI I F?"? 44
I I I I rim
I I ( I a g o ti c?7 z
131 A ? ® A E4
I ? ICI vA C4 ?w x
I XI z ®
w
I I I I ? N
V; Z
I I
-j Z
?z
I I I w? ?Q
Li- LLI
I I U I W- ww
I z I I z oLLI " 03
I o Z
I i J o 0
I I I 0 ? •.
I
? RM
I I I I ? :?,
I I I ?
I I ICI ?
I zo
IW0
I '- ?' I I o
I Q LO
? NN
L {.
IlCLm ° I o
IH ? 0
cr I I
I I I I O O
I I I ? O C) o
I I I I N .?
II 1 13 11 y N N
i ICM,
II 1' "1? 11 o

Z' r
o 1 I I I o a ?' m
1Q I I I? z?Z o zw
I I I ? x® o z?
I I ? p
I i ®z a H v
M
I I JI w> a ® 0z F
?I I I II ?° ??? w
x
I _ ? iii i o II z ® ?
_ _ LL II
I I II
II
a I I? I II Z
I J
o I I I ?o
N - I I I I ?Q
\\ II I ,' I w3
I\ I
\ ?? I z
?\ I
•.? \ I I I
---L-- I I I
? I I I
z
I I I a
?-7N/ ?N ? • I I I a ? b
I ?I I
\ I I? I
i \ i Z I ?. I
'? I I I I •? - ?,
.? I I I I I
\ I i I I i o
?• I I I
I y I I
f8 ? I ` ? I I I
I \• I I I °
l ?• I I I
I •?• I I
A ? 3N/7/ 0-LV N I
z °
o j ?
a4 ? cam, ? a Cr,
\ \ \ O 3 ?' m
\ \ F O ® ww w
rj)
0+ L? l/ a? ?Jm \v\ W ? A ® z H
ow w
LLI
// ? ?? \\ \ \\ =z
\ \ \ \\\ r Z
LLI
w ppI-? \
'? \\ \ \ \
LLI
w \\ \ \
Lr)
1 r
O
S
O
Ln
p n
W
E8
U-) Q
N U
N
O
z
0
x
I o ? ? ? ? x
En x z U
\ ? I E,,, ® U ? O W
E. et`° U o
I
LI??. I a®Q y ?z ?
?' I h A ? oa, A E-.
I? ? `? A a ? w w
j ?~• I `IN
J
w
?LnQ?? I o I ?I ? ?
0
I ,, o I w I?
co
ILLJ
I I o
` I I
I I 7
F
I
O
In W
° O
Q O
ih
N p
N _ z

0 3 ?" a IV :4
vz 9

x

F o
u

® w

W (J

26
O O

Z
z
a y

N
? a
?
U G4
H
o °
> ?
A U
® w
? W
z ?
H
U Q R. oG W W
z

t?

w
0
0
DO
0
UJ
N
a-
O
cr
a-
m
0
0
w
a
w
x
F -
V)

44

m
0 0
. N
N

W

c t5
Z
^LL
CL Q U
ONO U
..

CC

-
U-
> CM CM
Om w
Z
z
°
m
Z
= 0 N W

F- Q
a: LL U TO

a Z -i COL

LL O
O

o
o co w z
ao
O
Z

M U a0
z
p

o O
m

w
w
2
D a)
CM
0
O

w
o
CL
z ?
_ -o

z W ? N N °

72

Cl a)
a
N
M

0
0
0
0 a
N
N

E
O
LL

_
v
Z ?
0
0) N y
y
Q W E
U

w

`.
Q uZ

? a

N N C O co M
co of t? O
O

c
U
Q
?
? a X3
? g w c

.?
Q 3
.
.1 FC
H

M
M
N N

N
U ?
? N ? m
?
>, U Y
`
o

M
O L
O
?
E
o
i
a
m s- Z

O O O O
O M M
E O O
? v 0 0 0

N M

O

Z
? N
Q
O
O a W
F- O _z
O
N
H

PROPERTY
NUMBER NAME
I LANDEN FARMS, INC. OWNERS
ADDRESS SITE
152 FIREHOUSE RD. I
CHINQUAPIN, NC 28521

2 E D SLOAN JR P.O. BOX 25999 1
GREENVILLE, NC 29616

3 GEORGE DANIEL OLSEN 2659 S NC 41HWY 2
CHINQUAPIN, NC 28521

N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DUPLIN COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1242001 (B2954)
BRIDGE "65 ON NC 41-50
OVER NE CAPE FEAR RIVER
SHEET OF Ib
J?
Duplin County
Bridge No. 65 on NC 41-50
Over Northeast Cape Fear River
Federal Project BRSTP-41(3)
State Project 8.1242001
TIP Project B-2954
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
Date William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
y -27--0 -4z 6 aize&a
Date Nicholas Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
w
Duplin County
Bridge No. 65 on NC 41-50
Over Northeast Cape Fear River
Federal Project BRSTP-41(3)
State Project 8.1242001
TIP Project B-2954
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Documentation Prepared in
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
Date Alethia F. Raynor ,eop" CARo
Project Development Engineer ?t?`'p?..•••?°°,!'
S^ a =o
I
4ae
7 2? Robert Hanson, P.E. Project Development Unit Head
'? S7 Oo
Date Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Bridge No. 65 on NC 41-50
Over Northeast Cape Fear River
Duplin County
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-41(3)
State Project 8.1242001
TIP Project B-2954
Roadside Environmental Unit, Division Three, Structure Desi n
NCDOT will adhere to the Best Management Practices (BMP) for "Bridge Demolition
and Removal" during the removal of Bridge No. 65.
Roadside Environmental Unit, Division Three
NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Protection of Surface Waters and
Sediment and Erosion Control guidelines for High Quality Water (HQW) zones must be strictly
enforced during the construction stage of the project.
Division Three
A construction moratorium on "in water" work will be enforced from February 1 to
April 30 to avoid impacts on fish spawning.
Roadwav Design Unit, Roadside Environmental Unit, Division Three
Once construction of the new bridge and approaches are complete, the existing bridge
will be removed. The existing approach fill will be removed to natural grade and the area will be
planted with native grasses and/or tree species as appropriate.
Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1
April 20, 2000
Duplin County
Bridge No. 65 on NC 41-50
Over Northeast Cape Fear River
Federal Project BRSTP-41(3)
State Project 8.1242001
TIP Project B-2954
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace
Bridge No. 65 in Duplin County. The bridge carries NC 41-50 over the Northeast Cape
Fear River (Figure 1). It is programmed in the 2000-2006 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) as a bridge replacement project. This project is part of the Federal
Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP) and has been
classified as a "Categorical Exclusion". No substantial environmental impacts are
expected.
I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 65 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 1 with a new bridge
on new alignment 15.2 meters (50 feet) north of the existing structure (Figure 2). The
new structure will be approximately 9.6 meters (32 feet) wide and 91.5 meters (300 feet)
long. The bridge will include two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes and 1.2 meter (4 foot) offsets.
Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during construction.
There will be 308 meters (1010 feet) of new approach work to the west and 265
meters (870 feet) of new approach work to the east. The pavement width of the
approaches will be 9.6 meters (32.feet) including two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes and 1.2
meter (4 foot) paved shoulders. In addition, there will be 1.2 meter (4 foot) grass
shoulders. Based, on preliminary design, the design speed should be approximately 100
km/h (60 mph).
The estimated total cost of the project is $2,127,000 including $2,100,000 in
construction costs and $27,000 in right of way costs. The estimated cost shown in the
2000-2006 TIP is $841,000; including $820,000 in construction costs, and $21,000 in
right of way costs.
II. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
NCDOT does not anticipate any design exceptions.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
NC 41-50 is classified as a Rural Major Collector in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. The road serves traffic traveling between Chinquapin and
Wallace. In the immediate vicinity of the bridge, the area is rural and predominantly
woodlands. To the east and west of the bridge are scattered single-family dwellings and
farm fields.
Traffic volumes, on NC 41-50 in the vicinity of Bridge No. 65, are currently (year
2000) 5500 vehicles per day (VPD) and projected at 9000 VPD for the year 2025. There
is no posted speed limit in the vicinity of the bridge. The speed limit beyond the bridge,
entering Chinquapin, reduces to 45 mph.
The existing bridge was built in 1949. It is 85.7 meters (281 feet) long. The deck
width is 7.7 meters (25.3 feet). The superstructure of the seven span bridge is composed
of a reinforced concrete deck and steel I-beam girders. The interior bents of the
substructure are composed of reinforced concrete post and beam piles. One end bent is a
reinforced concrete cap on steel H-piles. The vertical clearance between the bridge deck
and the streambed is approximately 10.4 meters (34 feet). There are two lanes of traffic
on the bridge.
According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of the
bridge is 42.0 out of a possible 100. Presently the bridge is posted with weight
restrictions of 30 tons for single vehicles and 34 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers.
The vertical and horizontal alignments are fair in the project vicinity. The vertical
alignment is nearly flat, but there are sweeping horizontal curves on both bridge
approaches. The pavement width on the approaches to the existing bridge is
approximately 6 meters (20 feet). Shoulders on both approaches of the bridge are
approximately 2.7 meters (9 feet) wide. The Location and Surveys branch of NCDOT
state existing right of way monuments on the project indicate 30.5 meters (100 feet) of
right of way.
Five or six school buses cross Bridge No. 65 twice a day. According to the
Transportation Director for Duplin County, closing the road would not result in a major
burden.
Sprint Carolina Telephone Company owns underground telephone cables and
underground fiber optic cable in the vicinity of the project. Both lines are located to the
south side of the existing bridge and have aerial lines over the river. Approximately 152
meters (500 feet) east of the bridge the fiber optic cable crosses to the north side of NC 41-
50. The Chinquapin Water System owns a water line located on the north side of NC 41-50.
The water line runs along SR 1964 (Durwood Evans Road) then runs east along NC 41-50.
2
IV. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
There are two "build" options considered in this document as follows:
Alternate 1) (Recommended) Replace Bridge No. 65 with a new bridge on a location
approximately 15.2 meters (50 feet) north of the existing structure.
Maintain traffic on the existing structure during construction. The
recommended design speed is 100 km/h (60 mph).
Alternate 2) Replace Bridge No. 65 with a new bridge on a location approximately
15.2 meters (50 feet) south of the existing structure. Maintain traffic on
the existing structure during construction. The recommended design
speed is 100 km/h (60 mph).
Constructing a new bridge at the existing location and providing a temporary on-
site detour is not a competitive alternative. An on-site detour would require the
construction of a temporary structure approximately 67 meters (220 feet) in length, as
well as the construction of a replacement bridge.
Road closure is not feasible since there is not a reasonable off-site detour route
considering the volume of traffic on NC 41-50 and the length of the off-site detour. The
length of the detour is between 10.5 and 13.7 kilometers (6.5 and 8.5 miles) depending on
the origin and destination of the driver.
"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.
V. ESTIMATED COST (Table 1)

COMPONENT Recommended
ALTERNATE 1
ALTERNATE 2
New Bridge Structure
Bridge Removal
Roadway & Approaches $ 582,400
49,800
712,400 $ 582,400
49,800
719,400
Mobilization & Miscellaneous 470,400 473,400
Engineering & Contingencies 285,000 275,000
Total Construction $ 2,100,000 $ 2,100,000
Right of Way $ 27,000 $ 33,600
Total Cost $ 2,127,000 $ 2,133,600
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 65 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 1 with a new bridge
on new alignment 15.2 meters (50 feet) north of the existing structure (Figure 2). The
new structure will be approximately 9.6 meters (32 feet) wide and 91.5 meters (300 feet)
lone. The bridge will include two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes and 1.2 meter (4 foot) offsets.
T ;_ : s* ill bermaintained on the existing bridge during construction.
There will be 308 meters (1010 feet) of new approach work to the west and 265
meters (870 feet) of new approach work to the east. The pavement width of the
approaches will be 9.6 meters (32 feet) including two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes and 1.2
meter (4 foot) paved shoulders. In addition, there will be 1.2 meter (4 foot) grass
shoulders. Based on preliminary design, the design speed should be approximately 100
knob (60 mph).
Once construction of the new bridge and approaches are complete, the existing
bridge will be removed. The existing approach fill will be removed to natural grade and
the area will be planted with native grasses and/or tree species as appropriate.
NCDOT recommends Alternate 1 because it is the most reasonable and feasible
alternate for replacing Bridge No. 65. Alternate 1 has fewer wetland impacts, and avoids
impacts to a historic site discovered within the confines of the Northeast Cape Fear River.
Selection of Alternate 1 also allows traffic to be maintained on-site.
The Division Construction Engineer has indicated that replacing Bridge No. 65 on
new alignment to the north 'of the existing bridge, with traffic maintained on the existing
bridge during construction, would be acceptable.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. GENERAL
By replacing an inadequate bridge, this project 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 at the beginning of this document, in addition to use of current NCDOT standards
and specifications.
4
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.
Geographic information system data (dated January 2000) did not indicate any
hazardous waste facilities in the area of the project.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. 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.
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 substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will not
have substantial impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during
construction.
C. LAND USE & FARMLAND EFFECTS
The project is located in a rural portion of Duplin County with few urbanized
activities nearby. Local government officials have indicated that there are no zoning
regulations in place in Duplin County, which might affect the project.
The new bridge alignment and approaches are proposed to occur within
woodlands abutting the river and parallel to the existing bridge. The project will result in
the conversion of a small amount of wooded land, but the area is devoid of any
agricultural uses.
D. HISTORICAL EFFECTS & ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has reviewed the project for
historic architectural and archaeological resources. They stated there are no known
historic structures in the area. A historic architectural survey was not recommended.
(See SHPO letter dated February 20, 1997 in appendix.)
An archaeological survey was performed for the project. One previously
unrecordeU -__-sforic site was discovered within the confines of the Northeast Cape Fear
River. The site is situated adjacent to the southern border of the Bridge No. 65 Area of
Potential Effect. Therefore, it was concluded that Alternate 1 will not affect the site.
(See SHPO letter dated January 28, 1998.)
E. NATURAL RESOURCES
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
The project study area lies within the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. The
topography in this section of Duplin County is nearly level to gently sloping, dissected by
floodplains. Topography in the project area is nearly level, located in the floodplain area
associated with the Northeast Cape Fear River. Project elevation is approximately 8 m
(26.0 ft) above mean sea level (msl).
Soils
Two soil phases occur within project boundaries: Mixed local alluvial land and
Pamlico muck. Mixed local alluvial land, 0 to 2% slope, is somewhat poorly drained soil
occurring at the base of slopes and the head of streams. Permeability is medium to rapid.
Seasonal high water table is at the surface. Flooding and wetness are the main limitations
on development for this soil.
Pamlico muck is a very poorly drained soil occurring in the southern part of
Duplin County. Slopes are nearly level and runoff is ponded much of the time.
Permeability is very slow. Seasonal high water table is at the surface. Flooding and
wetness are the major limitations on development for this soil.
Soil core samples taken throughout the project area revealed soils with a
sandy/silty texture. The soils did exhibit hydric conditions, such as low chroma colors, in
low areas of the flood plain. Therefore, hydric soil indicators, as defined in the "Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual", 1987, were observed within the project study
area.
6
Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be
impacted by the project. Water resource information encompasses physical aspects of the
resource, its relationship to major water systems, Best Usage Standards and water quality
conditions. Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as are means to
minimize impacts.
Waters Impacted and Characteristics
The Northeast Cape Fear River will be the only surface water resource directly
impacted by the proposed project (Figure 2). Northeast Cape Fear River is located in
sub-basin 030622 of the Cape Fear River Basin. Northeast Cape Fear River is the last
downstream major tributary to Cape Fear River, draining a 1,750 square mile area. Its
confluence with the Cape Fear River is approximately 104.5 km (65 miles) downstream
of Bridge No. 65.
Northeast Cape Fear River, at Bridge No. 65, is approximately 61 in (200.0 ft)
wide and has 6 - 7 ft. banks. The substrate is composed of sand and gravel. The waters of
Northeast Cape Fear River are deep at the bridge and visibility was less than 0.3 in (1 ft).
Best Usage Classification
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has assigned streams a best usage
classification. The classification of Northeast Cape Fear River [index no. 18-74 (25.5)] is
CSw HQW. The C classification denotes waters protected for secondary recreation,
fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, agriculture and other uses.
Sw classification denotes swamp water or low velocities and other natural characteristics,
which are different from adjacent streams. The supplemental classification of HQW
denotes High Quality Waters, which are subject to development controls.
No Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watersheds or WS-II: predominately
undeveloped watersheds) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km
(1.0 mile) of project study area.
Water Quality
The Division of Water Quality has initiated a basinwide approach to water quality
management for the 17 river basins within the state. The basinwide approach allows for
more intensive sampling of biological, chemical and physical data that can be used in
basinwide assessment and planning. Likewise, benthic macroinvertebrates are
intensively sampled for specific river basins. Benthic macroinvertebrates have proven to
be a good indicator of water quality because they are sensitive to subtle changes in water
quality, have a relatively long life cycle, are nonmobile (compared to fish) and are
extremely diverse. The overall species richness and presence of indicator organisms help
7
to assess the health of streams and rivers. River basins are reassessed every five years to
detect changes in water quality and to facilitate (NPDES) permit review.
A benthic macroinvertebrate collection site is located immediately downstream of
Bridge No. 65 on the Northeast Cape Fear River. This station was sampled four times
from 1985 to 1993 and received a taxa richness rating from 82 to 89, a Biotic Index value
of 5.37 to 5.89, and a bioclassification of good to excellent (DWQ, 1995).
The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake and
estuarine water quality monitoring stations strategically located for the collection of
physical anc i.;hemical water quality data. The type of water quality data or parameters
that are collected is determined by the waterbody's freshwater or saltwater classification
and corresponding water quality standards (DWQ, 1997). Data collected at an AMS
mon,-,o::_,,?: s;.w on the Northeast Cape Fear River at NC Hwy 41 from 1988 to 1993 show
generally Good water quality, with no parameter varying significantly from expected
values (DWQ, 1995). Copper, chromium, and nickel were detected at low levels in fish
tissue sampling performed from 1987 to 1994.
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. No point source dischargers are located within a 1.6
km (1.0 mi) radius of the project study area.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Replacing an existing structure in the same alignment with a temporary detour
during construction usually poses the least risk to aquatic organisms and other natural
resources, whereas bridge replacement on a new alignment usually results in greater
impacts. Alternates 1 and 2 call for relocation of the bridge, using the existing bridge as a
detour during construction. Utilizing the full existing ROW width of 30.5 m (100.0 ft)
and new ROW width of 18.2 m (60.0 ft), anticipated impacts to the Northeast Cape Fear
River for each alternate will be 48.7 m (160.0 ft). Usually, project construction does not
require the entire right of way, therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
Project construction for either of the two alternates may result in the following impacts to
surface waters:
Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or erosion.
2. Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal.
3. Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
4. Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction
and toxic spills.
Precautions will be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the study
area. NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Protection of Surface
Waters and Sedimentation/Erosion Control guidelines in HQW zones will be strictly
enforced during the construction stage of the project. Provisions to preclude
contamination by toxic substances during the construction interval will also be
strictly enforced.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section describes
those ecosystems encountered in the study area, as well as the relationships between
fauna and flora within these ecosystems. Composition and distribution of biotic
communities throughout the project area are reflective of topography, hydrologic
influences and past and present land uses in the study area. Descriptions of the terrestrial
systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications and follow
descriptions presented by Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible. Dominant flora
and fauna observed, or likely to occur, in each community are described and discussed.
Fauna observed during the site visit are denoted by an asterisk (*). Published
range distributions and habitat analysis are used in estimating fauna expected to be
present within the project area.
Biotic Communities
Three communities are identified in the project study area: Coastal Plain
Bottomland Hardwoods (Blackwater subtype), Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest, and
maintained/disturbed. Community boundaries within the study area are well defined
without a significant transition zone between them. The Bottomland Hardwood Forest
has wetland communities associated within its boundaries. Faunal species likely to occur
within the study area will exploit all communities for shelter and foraging opportunities
or as movement corridors, except those fauna restricted to the aquatic environment.
Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods (Blackwater Subtype)
Bottomland hardwoods are present on both sides of the project area, bordering the
existing ROW and river channel. Periodic flooding during high flow periods drives the
bottomland hardwood forest. Sediment deposition may supply limited nutrient input in
blackwater systems. However, periodic flooding can also be a destructive factor during
large storm events by undercutting banks and eroding soils. The bottomland hardwood
forest community grades to Mixed hardwood forest community.
9
The woody species in this community consist of swamp laurel oak, overcup oak,
water oak, loblolly pine, red maple, sweetgum, sycamore, river birch, and swamp
chestnut oak. A few species of pignut hickory and bald cypress were also present. The
shrub layer consists of saplings of the canopy trees, sweet bay magnolia, black gum, and
american holly.
The be rbaceous and vine species in this community consist of smartweed,
greenbrier, net-veined chain fern, grapevine, rattan vine, spaghnum moss, poison ivy,
crossvine, and giant cane.
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
The Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest community occurs along a gradual transition
out of the Bottomland Hardwood community. This community was present on both the
east and west ends of the project. However, the majority of this community on the
eastern end of the project was clearcut and replanted with pine seedlings.
The woody species in this community consists of white oak, tulip poplar,
sweetgum, ironwood, swamp chestnut oak, loblolly pine, and river birch. The shrub layer
consists of possum haw, wax myrtle, blueberry, chinese privet, and black cherry. The
herbaceous layer consists of horsesugar, pokeweed, japanese honeysuckle, blackberry,
juncus, sedge, St. John's-wort, and resurrection fern.
Maintained/ Disturbed
The maintained/disturbed community is restricted to road shoulders along NC 41,
the area around the bridge, and the access road at the western end of the project. Flora
within this periodically maintained community includes: fescue, goldenrod, dock,
paspalum, smartweed, blackberry, henbit, wild geranium, wild onion, morning glory, dog
fennel, mugwort, and Veronica sp. The area immediately around the bridge, which is less
intensively maintained, also contains woolly mullein, horsenettle, and giant cane.
Sparkleberry, sweet gum, and loblolly pine are in the edge of the woods in this area.
Wildlife
The physical characteristics of the terrestrial and aquatic communities in an area
will affect the fauna that are present and use the area. This section addresses the fauna
likely to be found in the project study area.
Terrestrial Fauna
Fauna associated with the communities in the project area includes cotton mouse,
river otter, opossum* and raccoon*. White-tailed deer will use these forest communities
for cover and will forage on twigs and leaves as well as mast.
10
Avian species utilizing these areas include the yellow-rumped warbler*, Carolina
wren*, brown thrasher*, Carolina chickadee*, white throated sparrow* downy
woodpecker*, hairy woodpecker*, flicker*, kingfisher*, bluebird*, rufous sided towhee*,
turkey vulture*, and great blue heron*.
Aquatic Fauna
Fauna associated with the aquatic community includes various invertebrate and
vertebrate species. Prey fish including mosquitofish provide foraging opportunities for
redbreast, bluegill, warmouth, largemouth bass, and seasonally, american shad and
striped bass. Invertebrates that are likely present include crayfish (family Cambaridae),
nymphal stages of dragonflies and damselflies (Order Odonata), whirligig beetles (family
Gyrinidae) and corbicula*. The southern dusky salamander, green frog, snapping turtle
and brown water snake are likely common permanent residents in this community. _
Summary of Anticipated 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, for each of the
two project alternates. Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of each
community present within the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Table 1 summarizes potential quantitative
losses to these biotic communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated
impacts for each alternate are derived using the entire proposed right of way width.
Usually, project construction does not require the entire right of way, therefore, actual
impacts may be considerably less.
Table 1. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Community type Alternate 1 Alternate 2
Bottomland Hardwood .22 (.54) .44(l.09)
Mesic Mixed Hardwood .17 (.43) .28 (.69)
Maintained/Disturbed .42(l.03) .36 (.88)
Total .81 (2.00) 1.08 (2.66)
Values cited are in hectares (acres).
Selection of Alternate 1 will result in the lowest impact on the biotic
communities in the project area.
Plant communities found within the proposed project area serve as nesting and
sheltering habitat for various wildlife. Replacing Bridge No. 65 and its associated
improvements will reduce habitat for faunal species, thereby diminishing faunal numbers.
11
However, due to the size and scope of this project, it is anticipated that impacts to fauna
will be minimal.
Areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road shoulders and
early successional habitat. Reduced habitat will displace some wildlife further from the
roadway while attracting other wildlife by the creation of more early successional habitat.
Animals temporarily displaced by construction activities should repopulate areas suitable
for the species.
Aquatic communities are sensitive to even small changes in their environment.
Siltation, sedimentation and erosion from construction-related work will affect water
quality and biological constituents. Although direct impacts may be temporary, indirect
environmental impacts from these construction processes may result in long term or
irreversible effects.
Impacts often associated with in-stream construction include increased
channelization and scouring of the streambed. In-stream construction alters the stream
substrate and may remove streamside vegetation at the site. Disturbances to the substrate
will produce siltation, which clogs the gills and/or feeding mechanisms of benthic
organisms (sessile filter-feeders and deposit-feeders), fish and amphibian species.
Benthic organisms can also be covered by excessive amounts of sediment. These
organisms are slow to recover or repopulate a stream.
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material at the
construction site alters the terrain. Alteration of the streambank enhances the likelihood
of erosion and sedimentation. Revegetation stabilizes and holds the soil thus mitigating
these processes. Erosion and sedimentation carry soils, toxic compounds and other
materials into aquatic communities at the construction site. These processes magnify
turbidity and can cause the formation of sandbars at the site and downstream, thereby
altering water flow and the growth of vegetation. Streamside alterations also lead to
more direct sunlight penetration and to elevations of water temperatures, which may
impact many species.
Anadromous fish are a valuable resource and their migration must not be
adversely impacted. Because this project is in the coastal plain, affects to anadromous
fish were investigated. David Cox, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Highway Projects Coordinator, stated anadromous fish were not found in the project
vicinity. However, he recommended an in-water construction moratorium from
February I to April 30 to avoid impacts on local fish spawning.
12
JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to
two important issues--Waters of the United States and rare and protected species.
Waters of the United States
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).
Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the 1987 "Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual". The three-parameter approach is used, where
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation. and prescribed hydrologic characteristics must all be
present for an area to be considered a wetland.
One type of wetland is present within the project area, and is associated with the
bottomland hardwood forest (Figure 2). The wetlands can be described as palustrine
forested broad-leaved deciduous seasonally flooded (PFO 1 C, Cowardin, et al). These
wetlands can also be described Bottomland Hardwoods, blackwater subtype (Schafale
and Weakley, 1990). Soils within the wetland areas have a sandy texture and a Munsell
color notation of l OYR 2/1. Hydrological indicators include surface flooding,
buttressing, and the presence of oxidized rhizospheres and drift lines. Vegetation within
the wetlands include overcup oak, swamp chestnut oak, tulip poplar, spaghnum moss,
net-veined chain fern, giant cane, and red maple.
Northeast Cape Fear River is a jurisdictional surface water under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Discussion of the biological, physical
and water quality aspects of Northeast Cape Fear River are presented in previous
sections of this report.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Table 2 summarizes anticipated impacts to wetland and surface water areas in the
project area for each alternate. Anticipated impacts to these areas are determined by
using the entire project ROW width. Usually, project construction does not require the
entire ROW; therefore, actual wetland and surface water impacts may be considerably
less.
13
Table 2. Anticipated Impacts to Wetland and Surface Water Areas
Alternate 1 Alternate 2
Total Wetlands hectares (acres) .045 (.11) .21 (.52)
Northeast Cape Fear River meters
(feet) 48.8 (160) 48.8 (160)
Selection of Alternate 1 will result in the lowest impact on the wetlands in the
project area.
Bridge Demolition
During the demolition and removal of the existing Bridge No. 65, there is
potential fe. 1components of the bridge to be dropped into Waters of the United States.
The decl1, gs, and substructure are composed of concrete. The bridge railings will
be removl °:,: Shout dropping components into the water. The resulting temporary fill
estimated from dropping the remaining concrete components is approximately 76 m3
(100 yd3).
Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated. In accordance with
provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be
required from the COE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the
United States".
The Clean Water Act §404 establishes a permit program to regulate the discharge
of dredge or fill material into Waters of the United States. The USACE, which
administers the permit program under CWA §404, established nationwide permits for
minor activities, specialized activities, and activities regulated by other authorities. A
nationwide permit (NWP) is a permit by rule. In other words, compliance with the NWP
rules satisfies the statutory provision under section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Nationwide 23, entitled Approved Categorical Exclusions, covers certain activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded, or financed, in whole or part, by
another Federal agency or department. Nationwide 23 applies when another Federal
agency or department determines that their activity, work, or discharge is categorically
excluded from an environmental impact statement (EIS) under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The activity, work, or discharge becomes
categorically excluded when its actions neither individually nor cumulatively have
significant effect on the human environment. Also, the Office of the Chief of Engineers
must receive notice of the agency or department's application for the categorical
exclusion and concur with the categorical exclusion determination (61 FR 65874, 65916;
December 13, 1996). The project's impacts on the Waters of the United States will likely
require a NWP 23.
A North Carolina DWQ Section 401 Water Quality General Certification is required
prior to the issuance of the Section 404. Section 401 Certification allows surface waters
14
to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the construction or other land
manipulations.
Mitigation
The COE has adopted, through the Council on 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 restore and maintain 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
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of
averting impacts to Waters of the United States. A 1990 Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE states that 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.
Selection of Alternate 1 is a measure of avoidance, impacting fewer wetlands than
Alternate 2.
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 median widths, ROW widths and/or fill slopes. Other practical mechanisms
to minimize impacts to Waters of the United States crossed by the proposed project
include: strict enforcement of sedimentation control BMP's for the protection of surface
waters during the entire life of the project; reduction of clearing and grubbing activity;
reduction/elimination of direct discharge into streams; reduction of runoff velocity; re-
establishment of vegetation on exposed areas, judicious pesticide and herbicide usage;
minimization of "in-stream" activity; and litter/debris control.
Compensatory 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
15
mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts that .remain after all appropriate
and practicable minimization has been required. 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.
Compensatory mitigation is not usually necessary with a Nationwide Permit # 23.
Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline
either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law
(under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that
and -?.ac?n likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally protected be subject
to review by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may receive additional
protection under separate state laws.
Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions
of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended.
As of 20 December 1999, the FWS lists the following federally protected species for
Duplin County (Table 3). A brief description of each species' characteristics and habitat
follows.
Table 3. Federally-Protected Species for
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Alligator mississippiensis American Alligator T(S/A)
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker E
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range).
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
"T(S/A)" denotes Threatened due to similarity of appearance (a species that is threatened due to similarity of
appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection. These species are not biologically
endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation.)
16
Alligator mississippiensis (American alligator) Threatened due to Similarity
of Appearance
Species that have the federal classification of Threatened due to Similarity of
Appearance are not biologically endangered or threatened. These species do not receive
protection under Section 7 and a biological conclusion is not required. However, due to
its similarity of appearance to other protected crocodilians, federal regulations, such as
hide tagging requirements, are maintained on the commercial trade to help control illegal
taking of the protected species. The NHP database of rare species and unique habitats
contains no record of American alligator within the study area.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf pine,
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 200.0 hectares
(500.0 acres). This acreage must be contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Nesting and foraging habitat requirements considered necessary for the RCW are
not present within the project vicinity. The area has been recently clearcut and there are no
old growth stands of southern pine in vicinity of the project. Additionally, forested areas in
the project vicinity consist of mixed pine/hardwood forests, which are less than fifty
percent pine and generally have a dense understory of hardwood saplings and shrubs. The
NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats has no record
for the presence of the RCW within the project vicinity. Therefore, no impact to the red-
cockaded woodpecker will result from project construction.
Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
Table 4 lists Federal Species of Concern, the species state status (if afforded state
protection) and the presence of suitable habitat for each species in the study area. This
species list is provided for information purposes as the status of these species may be
upgraded in the future.
17
Table 4. Federal Species of Concern for Duplin County.
Scientific Name Common Name NC Status Habitat
Heterodon simus Southern hognose snake SR* No
Procamberus pluminus Croatan crayfish SR Yes
Dionea muscipula Venus flytrap C-SC No
Oxypolis ternata Savanna cowbane Wl No
"SC"--A Special Concern species is one which requires monitoring but may be taken or collected and sold
under regulations adopted under the provisions of Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes
(animals) and the Plant Protection and Conservation Act (plants). Only propagated material may be
sold of Special Concern plants that are also listed as Threatened or Endangered.
"SR"--A Significantly Rare species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20
populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct
exploitation or disease. The species is generally more common elsewhere in its range, occurring
peripherally in North Carolina.
"W 1 "--A Watch Category 1 species is a rare species whose status in North Carolina is relatively well known
and which appears to be relatively secure at this time.
"*"--Historic record (last observed in the county more than 50 years ago).
(NHP, 1997)
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were any of
these species observed. A review of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program data base of rare
species and unique habitats revealed no records of North Carolina rare and/or protected
species in or near the project study area.
18
TIP PROJECT B-2954
FIGURES
t Ar' 1:,'1 1984
¦-? \ s
4
•` ? leo2? ?.-.
1964 1968 111
?o - •?
J
?S 181
50 o ?l.
_ ? es
181E
N
.
\.0
947 5 _ 1925
Olive ?f
.9 ;,&lypso
(2 3
Faison
nt.
owaens
??
Warsaw-
'y ': ,3 t
4®
D U
Ma•noli.6
1]
Rose Hill '
I ' ?
1819
•
Chinquapin N. 18
9 1820

1970
1818 ,
O
r•t- ..? •? . 171'

41 ' ?
U1

/ \ 4
1971
I Z'? ? k; ? Manodli
•
I Y... ?' 1828
1827
I \ •
2 1 1970 1972
ARC
1973
Sloan
1974 .9 .9 '
2, 6 O 1974

1979 A
`87 1977 1827 -1
1975
..

?? s
Da I /
N ?- ' i
Albertson
Morne•aY! 1 • ' .6
7
1976
;
I1 11 ' • _ \ 1827 .?
L 4 IJ
? m
enever 2
10 41
City
Pon, 977 MILES
Hill 1
ewaviu 0 1
V
111110-Miliff NOR MEN I
N 10
_ I
Lyman ; I 0
` KILOMETERS
Al,
'?oyNOH7" North Carolina
1g Fa\ Department of Transportation
T =i Division of Highways
?R` Project Development S
7R Environmental Analysis Branch
Duplin County
Replace Bridge No. 65 on NC 41-50
Over Northeast Cape Fear River
B-2954
Figure 1
TIP PROJECT B-2954
APPENDIX
3 Ohn Ul liovncD
f w SLAT[
J v
?Mrft , s1
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
February 20, 1997
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
'-p-, -aQS4
Re: Bridge 65 on NC 41-50 over Northeast Cape
Fear, Duplin County, Federal Aid Project BRSTP-
41(3), State Project 8.124200 1, ER 97-8194
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
On February 4, 1997, 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.
Based on the information provided, we cannot determine possible effects on
archaeological resources. Please provide preliminary plans and maps as soon as
they are available for review.
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 gD,
Thank you fey your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concernir±ri L1,1v j)u,.R pomment, nlC::,:;a contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
fiivieW coordineorr, 9@1799=4763.
Sara erely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
C. Bruton
T. Padgett

-sr J
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
January 28, 1998
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge 65 on NC 41-50 over Northeast Cape
Fear River, Duplin County, Federal Aid Project
BRSTP-41(3), State Project 8.1242001, TIP B-
2954, ER 98-8308
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your letter of January 7, 1998, transmitting the archaeological
survey report by John Mintz and Brian Smith concerning the above project. We
have reviewed the report and offer our comments.
We agree that site 31 DP210* * is outside the area of potential effect as currently
defined. However, the site is in such close proximity to the project that we
recommend that any activities, such as temporary causeways or lateral ditches
which might be placed south of the extant bridge, be reviewed by us to assure that
no damage is caused.
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.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw,'
cc: /H. F. Vick
T. Padgett