19940917 Ver 1_Complete File_19941004

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
Tlvr e
REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
FROM: REF:. NO.. OR ROOM, BLDG..
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS „ I? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
?'-'PR
P
'
A
E
ARE
REPLY FOR
MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

ij 0

• ?,;,1

?'

? ,i
;,
?
, ,?
?;?

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
September 26, 1994
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:

R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
Subject: Pender-Duplin County, Replace Bridge No. 146 over
Doctor's Creek on SR 1304, Federal-Aid Project
BRZ-1304(1), State Project 8.2270901, T.I.P. No.
B-2600.
Attached for your information are three copies of the project
planning report for the subject project. The project is
being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an individual
permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November
22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of
Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will ble
followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2734
(Categorical Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are
providing one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management, for their review.
If you have any questions or need additional information,
please call Robin Little at 733-3141.
Sincerely,
B J O`Qui
Assista Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
9

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

Date: 6/24/94
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-2600
State Project No. 8.2270901
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1304(1)
A. Pro.iect Description: (List project location and scope.
Attach location map.)
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 146 on SR 1304 on the
Pender-Duplin County border over Doctor's Creek.
The bridge will be replaced at the existing location
with a 40-meter (130-foot) long bridge at the same
elevation. The new bridge will have a 7.2-meter
(24-foot) clear deck width which will provide a 6
meter (20-foot) travelway plus a 0.6-meter (2-foot)
offset on each side. Traffic will be maintained on
existing secondary roads during construction. This
project (B-2600) will be clustered with B-2601 due
to the proximity of the two projects (see figure) to
reduce the costs and increase efficiency of
construction.
NOTE: Refer to Section D, "Special Project Information,"
for list of ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS.
B. Purpose and Need: Bridge No. 146 has a sufficiency rating
of 26.4 out of 100 and an estimated remaining life
of less than five years. The deck is only 5.5
meters (18 feet) wide. The NCDOT Bridge Policy
calls for a bridge 7.3 meters (24 feet) wide. The
bridge is posted at 8 metric tons (9 tons) for
single vehicles (SV) and 15 metric tons (17 tons)
for truck-tractor semi-trailers (TTST). For these
reasons, Bridge No. 146 needs to be replaced.
C. Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following improvements which
apply to the project:
Type II Improvements
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing,
restoration, rehabilitation, reconstruction, adding
shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g.,
parking, weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and
Reconstructing pavement (3R and 4R
improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding
through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge,
auxiliary, and turn lanes)
1

Date: 6/24/94
e -
i
0.
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets,
and drainage pipes, including safety
treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than
one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement
projects including the installation of ramp
metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey
type barriers and pier protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or
upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation
and/or realignment h. Making minor roadway
realignment i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements
including removing hazards and flattening
slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and
motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including
bridge rail retrofit
F 3] Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or
replacement or the construction of grade separation
to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing
bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no
red lead paint), scour repair, fender systems,
and minor structural improvements
Fd] Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest
areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or
for joint or limited use of right-of-way, where the
proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
2
Date: 6/24/94
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance
facilities in areas used predominantly for
industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing
zoning and located on or near a street with
adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and
support vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail
and bus buildings and ancillary facilities where
only minor amounts of additional land are required
and there is not a substantial increase in the
number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open
area consisting of passenger shelters, boarding
areas, kiosks and related street improvements) when
located in a commercial area or other high activity
center in which there is adequate street capacity
for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance
facilities in areas used predominantly for
industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing
zoning and where there is no significant noise
impact on the surrounding community.
D.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective
purposes, advance land acquisition loans under
section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a
particular parcel or a limited number of parcels.
These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE
only where the acquisition will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in
alignment for planned construction projects, which
may be required in the NEPA process. No project
development on such land may proceed until the NEPA
process has been completed.
Special Proiect Information: (Include ENVIRONMENTAL
COMMITMENTS)
Environmental Commitments:
1. All standard measures will be implemented to avoid
or minimize environmental impacts.
2. Best Management Practices (BMP) including strict
erosion control measures will be implemented.
3
Date: 6/24/94
Estimated Costs:
Construction $ 300,000
Right of Way $ 10,000
Total
$ 310,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 100 VPD
Year 2015 - 200 VPD
Proposed Typical Roadway Section:
6-meter (20-foot) wide travelway plus 1.2-meter
(4-foot) shoulders. Note: shoulders will be 0.9 meters
(3 feet) wider if guardrail is needed.
Design Speed:
100 km/h (60 mph)
Functional Classification:
Rural Local Route
Division Office Comments:
Division Office supports clustering B-2600 with
B-2601 due to the proximity of the projects and the
resulting savings in mobilization costs.
Other Items:
A design exception may be required if the guardrail
extends into the curve at the west end.
E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved in the project, the
following evaluation must be completed. If the project
consists only of Type I improvements, the following checklist
does not need to be completed.
ECOLOGICAL
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact
on any unique or important natural resource?
(2) Does the project involve habitat where
federally listed endangered or threatened
species may occur?
YES NO
F-1 X
F-1 X
1
4
1
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
Date: 6/24/94
F-1 x
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the
amount of permanent and/or temporary
wetland taking less than one-third x ?
(1/3) of an acre AND have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland
takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require the use of ? X
U. S. Forest Service lands?
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water
resources be adversely impacted by ? X
proposed construction activities?
(7) Does the project involve waters classified
.as Outstanding Water Resources (OWR) and/or F-1 X
High Quality Waters (HQW)?
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of
the United States in any of the designated ? X
mountain trout counties?
(9) Does the project involve any known
underground storage tanks (UST's) or
hazardous materials sites?
PERMITS AND COORDINATION
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA
county, will the project significantly
affect the coastal zone and/or any "Area
of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier
Resources Act resources?
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be
required?
F-1 X
YES NO
1-1 x
F-1 ?
F] x
5
Date: 6/24/94
03) Will the project result in the modification ? X
of any existing regulatory floodway?
(14) Will the project require any stream ? X
relocations or channel changes?
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts X
to planned growth or land use for the area?
(16) Will the project require the relocation of X
any family or business?
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of ?
right of way, is the amount of right of way X
acquisition considered minor?
(18) Will the project involve any changes in ? X
access control?
(19) Will the project substantially alter the
usefulness and/or land use of adjacent F-1 X
property?
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on
permanent local traffic patterns or F-1 X
community cohesiveness?
YES NO
(21) Is the project included in an approved ?
thoroughfare plan and/or Transportation X
Improvement Program (and is, therefore, in
conformance with the Clean Air Act of
1990)?
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an ? X
increase to traffic volumes?
r
e
6

Date: 6/24/94
(23) Will traffic be maintained during ?
construction using existing roads, staged X
construction, or on-site detours?
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social,
economic, or environmental grounds F-1 X
concerning the project?
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal, ?
State, and local laws relating to the X
environmental aspects of the action?
CULTURAL RESOURCES
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on
properties eligible for or listed on the
National Register of Historic Places?
(27) Will the project require the use of
Section 4(f) resources (public parks,
recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl
refuges, historic sites, or historic
bridges, as defined in Section 4(f) of the
U. S. Department of Transportation Act of
1966)?
F-1 X
F-1 X
(28) Will the project involve construction in,
across, or adjacent to a river designated ? X
as a component of or proposed for inclusion
in the Natural System of Wild and Scenic
Rivers?
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable
Responses in Part E
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E
should be provided below. Additional supporting
documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
7

G.
Date: 6/24/94
CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-2600
State Project No. 8.2270901
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1304(1)
Pro.iect Description: (List project location and scope.
Attach location map.)
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 146 on SR 1304 on the
Pender-Duplin County border over Doctor's Creek.
The bridge will be replaced at the existing location
with a 40-meter (130-foot) long bridge at the same
elevation. The new bridge will provide a 6.0-meter
(20-foot) travelway plus a 0.6-meter (2-foot) offset
on each side. Traffic will be maintained on
existing secondary roads during construction. This
project (B-2600) will be clustered with B-2601 due
to the proximity of the two projects (see figure) to
reduce the costs and increase efficiency of
construction.
NOTE: Refer to Section D, "Special Project Information,"
for list of ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
X TYPE II(A)
TYPE II(B)
Approved:
•G/
Date Oj_ anager
Planning & Environmental Branch
?Z yy At y
Date . ProAe'ct
6 -M ? 9i -
Date Pro ect
4-pla n(nUnit Head
.? t
lan ing Engineer
For Type II(B) projects only:
Date Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
8
? f
' T'--t 1.5 41
O 1132
t.; Duplin County I
- Bridge No. 146
co *?.:•:: a? •' ?.?-? 1130 6
1 128 1 156
1 183
/• `' 1129
4 5; y .0 w 1 157
`4 Fqs 7 ` .8 1158 o0tors
FAS .9
.0
J,
?:. 1158
.0 9,0 ?\? 130-3 w
`f 1 159 9
i' o X101
N - O
421
Sampson County 1 ` . /
o Z . o
PineQreen
• S A `hl
'44 - rro,
Q Cywess
TP7 Creek
Y? r 50
M
117 0 ,
l? R
/
/r
Bridge No. 147
1 B-2601
-1--?--1- STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
r
t
Pender County
1300
O
.4
1212
0•
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
PENDER - DUPLIN COUNTIES
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 146 ON SR 1304
OVER DOCTORS CREEK
B - 2600
0 km 1.6 km 3.2
? 1 1
0 miles 1 miles 2

D ? w1 ll C t0 ??? ?`?
r?? ?5T
NATURAL SYSTEMS REPORT
Replacement of Bridges # 146 and # 147
SR 1304/1157 and SR 1304
Pender-Duplin Counties, North Carolina
\ (B-2600)
(B-2601)
Prepared for:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
Prepared by:
Ecological Consultants
3403 Long Ridge Road
Durham, North Carolina 27703
June 1994

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Y
1.0 Introduction ..:.................................................. 1
1.1 Project Description .......................................... 1
1.2 Purpose ................................................. 1
1.3 Methodology ....................... ....................... 1
1.4 Project Area ................................................2
1.5 Physiography and Soils .................. ........ . ......... 2
2.0 Biotic Resources ................................................... 2
2.1 Plant Communities ........................................... 2
2.2 Anticipated Impacts to Plant Communities ......................... 3
2.3 Wildlife...... ..............................................4
2.3.1 Terrestrial ............................................4
2.3.2 Aquatic ..............................................4
2.4 Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife ................................. 4
3.0 Water Resources .................................................. 5
3.1 Waters Impacted ............................................ 5
3.2 Best Usage Classification and Water Quality ....................... 5
3.3 Stream Characteristics ........................................ 5
3.4 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources .......................... 6
4.0 Special Topics ................................................... 6
4.1 Waters of the United States .................................... 6
4. 1.1 Permits ............................................. 6
4.1.2: Mitigation ........................................... 6
4.2 Protected Species ............................................ 7
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species .............................. 7
4.2.2 Federal Candidate Species...... ....................... 12
4.2.3 State Protected Species ................................. 13
5.0 References ...................................................... 14
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resource Technical Report is submitted to assist in the
preparation of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) document for the project.
1.1 Project Description
ti
One alternative is proposed. Alternative 1 is to replace the bridges at the existing
location with an off-site detour. The replacement structures would be a 39.6 in (130 ft) long
and 7.9 m (26 ft) wide bridge, for bridge #146 and a single 3.7 m (12 ft) by 1.8 m (6 ft) box
culvert for bridge # 147.
1.2 P ose
The purpose of this document is to describe and inventory the natural resources identified
within the project vicinity and estimate potential impacts to these resources. Specifically, the
tasks performed for this study include: 1) an assessment of biological features within the study
corridor including descriptions of vegetation, wildlife, protected species, wetlands, and water
quality; 2) an evaluation of probable impacts resulting from construction; and 3) a preliminary
determination of permit needs.
1.3 Methodology
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from the
following sources including: North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM)
water quality classification (Cape Fear River Basin), DEM Point Source Discharge Report for
the Cape Fear River, DEM Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) survey for
the Cape Fear River, U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (USGS) quadrangle map (Wallace West,
N.C.), Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of protected species, North Carolina Natural
HenTage Program (NC-NHP) data base of uncommon and protected species and unique habitats
and aerial photography (scale 1: 1200) furnished by the NCDOT.
Field surveys were conducted along the proposed project alignments on May 2, 1994.
Plant communities likely to be impacted by proposed improvements were walked and visually
observed for significant features. Wildlife was identified using a number of observation
techniques; active searching and capture, visual observations (binocular), and recording
identifying signs of wildlife (sounds, tracks, and 'burrows). Cursory surveys of the aquatic
habitats were conducted using a long-handled triangular sweep net. Organisms captured were
identified and then released. Impact calculations were based on 24 in (80 ft) for Alternative 1.
1.4 Project Area
The proposed project occurs in a rural area on the Duplin-Pender County line (Figure 1).
Landuse is agricultural, floodplain forests, scrub-shrub and urban/disturbed areas. Floodplain
forests are found along Doctors Creek. Doctors Creek is bridged twice at the project location.
Urban/disturbed areas are limited to land adjacent to the existing bridges and road. The
scrub-shrub area is found scattered throughout the project area. Agricultural lands comprise
much of the surrounding areas.
1.5 PhysiogrraQhy and Soils
Duplin and Pender Counties are located within the Middle and Lower Coastal Plain
Province. Topography is characterized by smooth, gently undulating, plateau-like, seaward
sloping lands in moderate drainage. Elevations in the immediate project area range from 13.7 m
(45 ft) along the creek and floodplain forest to 15 m (50 ft) along the roadside.
The county is underlain primarily with sedimentary rock in Duplin-Pender Counties.
Local changes in subsurface geology are common, and large, homogeneous masses of a single
rock type are rare. Soils in the project vicinity are dominated by the presence of Muckalee loam
in the floodplain areas. Muckalee loam is poorly drained on flood plains and are frequently
flooded for brief periods. Muckalee loam is classified as a hydric soil or have hyrdic soils as a
major component.
2.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
2.1 Plant Communities
Three distinct plant community types occur within the immediate area of the proposed
project. Specific communities exhibited slight variation dependent upon location and physical
characteristics of the site (soils, topography, human uses, etc.). Communities are described
below.
Floodplain Hardwood Forest
Floodplain Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods, Brownwater
Subtype) are on level areas adjacent to Doctors Creek and in flooded woodlands adjacent to the
existing roadway and is a mixture of hardwoods. The canopy is composed of sweetgum
(Liquidambar stvraciflua), red maple (Acer Mbrum), live oak ( uercus vir inian a), and winged
elm (Ulmus alata). Some of these species are hung with Spanish moss (Tillandsia usneoides),
particurally trees adjacent to the creek margins. Sub-canopy trees include the canopy species.
The shrub layer is composed of saplings of red maple, sweetgum, and privet (Ligustrum
sinense). Vines present are greenbrier (Smilax sue.) and trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans).
Herb layer is sparse and include southern lady fern (Athydum asulenioides) and sensitive fern
(Onoclea sensibilis). Vegetation in the creek channels include Lizards tail (Saururus cernuus).
2
44
`
.

Urban/Disturbed
This community classification includes disturbed areas adjacent to roadside margins in
the vicinity of the project. This area is characterized primarily by invasive grasses, herbs, vines
and a few shrubs including: fescue grass (Festuca spp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
ja onica), grape (Vitis spy.), henbit (Lamium amplexicaule), privet, trumpet creeper, Carolina
geranium (Geranium carolinianum), vaseygrass (Paspalum urvillei), poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans), and five-fingers (Potentilla canadensis).
Scrub-Shrub
The scrub-shrub community extremely dense andis composed of silverling tree
(Baccharis halimifolia), privet, deerberry (Vaccinium stamineum) and saplings-af sweetgum and
long leaf pine (Pinus alu tris). A dense vine layer is composed of multiflora rose (Rosa
multiflora), greenbrier, trumpet creeper and poison ivy.
2.2 Anticipated Impacts to Plant Communities
Impacts on plant communities are reflective of the relative abundance of each system
present in the study area. It should be noted that estimated impacts were derived using the entire
proposed right of way. Project construction often does not require the entire right of way and
therefore, actual impacts may be less. The following table summarizes potential plant
community impacts which could result from the proposed bridge replacements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Impacts to Plant Communities
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLANT COMMUNITIES
Floodplain Hardwood Forest
Urban/Disturbed
Scrub-Shrub
ESTIMATED IMPACT
Alternative 1
0.30 (0.75)
0.18 (0.45)
0.11 (0.27)
TOTAL
0.59(l.47)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Values in hectares (acres).
Impacts to plant communities as a result of bridge replacements for Alternative 1 are
restricted to narrow strips adjacent to the existing bridges and roadway segments. Bridges and
approach improvements occur primarily within disturbed right-of-way limits and floodplain
hardwood forest edges. The loss of floodplain hardwood forest habitat is likely to reduce the
number of plant species which serve as shelter, nesting and foraging habitat for numerous
species of wildlife.
3
2.3 Wildlife
2.3.1 Terrestrial
The project area consists of a combination of rural countryside, floodplain forests,
scrub-shrub and urban/disturbed areas along roads. Clearing and conversion of tracts of land for
agricultural and residential uses has eliminated some cover and protection for many indigenous
wildlife species nearby the project area. The remaining natural plant communities in the area,
particularly the forested area adjacent to Doctors Creek and associated ecotomes, do serve as
valuable habitat. The forest bordering Doctors Creek has all the necessary components (food,
water, protective cover) for mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians.
No sighting or evidence (tracks, scat, burrows, nests, etc.) for any mammal species were
observed. Mammals typical for this area are the gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), gray fox
(Uroc ron cinereoargenteus), Virginia opossum (Didelphis vireiniana), mink (Mustela vison) and
white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus).
The observed bird species are typical of a rural forested setting where a patchwork of
habitat types are available. Species encountered above and nearby Doctors Creek include crows
(Corvus brachyrh chos), Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), mourning dove (Zenaida
macroura), a flock of blue jays (Cyanocitta cristata) and wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina).
Reptiles and amphibians typical of these communities include the eastern garter snake
(Thamno his sirtalis), Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis), eastern box turtle (IggVene
Carolina), and Fowler's Toad (Bufo woodhousei).
2.3.2 Aquatic
Doctors Creek supports aquatic invertebrates and several species of fish. Game fish
species present are redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), redfin pickerel (Esox americanus
americanus), catfish (Ictalurus spy.), warmouth (Chaenobrvttus Paulo s) and sucker (Moxostoma
The creek and adjacent banks also provide suitable benthic and riparian habitat for
amphibians and aquatic reptiles such as the eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), northern
dusky salamander (Desmogna? thus fuscus), frogs (Rana s=.), snapping turtles (Chelydra
se erp ntina) and several snake species.
2.4 Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife
Habitat affected by the proposed action include Urban/Disturbed, Scrub-shrub and
Floodplain Hardwood Forested areas. Floodplain Hardwood Forest habitat provides excellent
habitat for a diversity of plants and animals. The Urban/Disturbed area is utilized by
opportunistic plant species such as greenbriar and Japanese honeysuckle and mobile species such
as rodents, lizards and snakes that can recover quickly from construction impacts.
4
The proposed action can potentially have substantial affects on the aquatic ecosystem
unless strict sediment control measures are taken. The disturbance of the creek bed and
sedimentation from the banks could affect aquatic life, (fish, mollusks, and benthic
invertebrates) both at the project site as well as down stream reaches.
3.0 WATER RESOURCES
3.1 Waters Impacted

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

13-1
cv
V
uI
d
c
w \
I Si .
G ? ? v
VJ
'I
•?' r N
I a?
I
a l ?-
t

\i
.1
V
h
f6
r
.-....:,...y?FIA•Y%i.Itw..+w.I?4Y•ia•.,.?_!ww-.a.N .:a:.. ..?...

r.,
r
L?

r ?r
5 -
3.2 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Short term impacts to water quality can be anticipated from construction-related
activities, which may increase sedimentation and turbidity. Impacts can be minimized by the use
of best management practices, including implementation of stringent erosion and sedimentation
control measures during construction.
Long term impacts to water resources are not expected as a result of proposed
improvements. The new bridge will maintain the present flow to protect stream integrity.
Increased runoff from roadway surfaces will be partially mitigated by providing for vegetated
road shoulders and limited use of ditching where ever possible.
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS - -
4.1 Waters of the United States
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3, in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters and wetlands will be impacted by project
construction. Approximately 0.30 ha (0.75 acres) for Alternative 1 of Palustrine forested
deciduous wetlands (see Cowardin et al. 1979) will be impacted (filled) with the current project
design.
Wetland communities were identified using the criteria specified in the 1987 "US Army
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual". For an area to be considered a "wetland",
the following three specifications must be meet; 1) presence of hydric soils (low soil chroma
values), 2) presence of hydrophytic vegetation, and 3) evidence of hydrology at or near the soil
surface for a portion (12.5 percent or greater duration) of the growing season.
4. 1.1 Permits
Section 404 impacts to wetlands will occur.' A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(A)23,
for impacts to surface waters of Doctors Creek, is likely to be applicable if the WRC certifies
that construction of this project will not adversely affect these waters. This permit authorizes
activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or in part, by
another Federal agency or department. That agency or department has determined that the
activity is categorically excluded from the environmental documentation, because it will neither
individually or cumulatively have a significant environmental effect.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 (1665)
Water Quality General Certification is also required prior to issuance of the Nationwide Permit.
4.1.2 iti ation
Projects authorized under Nationwide Permits usually do not require compensatory
mitigation according to the 1989 Memorandum Agreement between the Environmental
6
Protection Agency and the Department of the Army. However, utilization of best management
practices (BMP's) is recommended in an effort to minimize impacts.
4.2 Protected Species
4.2.1 Federally Protected S ep cies
y
Species with federal classifications of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) are protected
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (1978, 1979, 1982, and 1988
Amendments). Candidate species do not receive protection under the Act, but are mentioned
due to potential vulnerability. The following federally protected species are listed for
Duplin-Pender Counties:
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Piping plover ( haradrius melodus) - T
Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) - E
Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys keni) - E
Loggerhead turtle ( aretta caretta) - T
Green head turtle (Chelonia mydas) - T
Rough-leaved loosestrife (L,ysimachia asperulaefolia) - E
American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana) - E
Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi) - E
Seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus umilus) - T
Brief descriptions of these organisms characteristics and habitat requirements are
provided below.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Status: E
Farff ly: Picidae
Listed: 10/13/70
This federally Endangered woodpecker is found in scattered locations throughout the
southeast. The bird measures 18 to 20 cm long with a wing span ranging from 35 to 38 cm. The
male has a small red spot on each side of the head. Both males and females show a black cap
and stripe on the side of the neck. The throat is also black while the cheeks and under parts are
white. Black and white horizontal stripes are visible on the back. Nesting habitat consists of
open pine stands (minimum age 60 years) or mixed pine/hardwood stands, (50 percent or more
pine). Longleaf pine (Pinus alustris) is most commonly used, but other species of southern pine
are also acceptable.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat exists along the bridge replacement alternatives. Also, a review of
NC Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the subject project
7
study area. It can be concluded that project construction will have no impact on the
Red-cockaded woodpecker.
Piping plover ( haradrius melodus)
Status: T
Family: Charadriidae
Listed: 12/11/85
The Piping plover is a small, stocky shorebird resembling a sandpiper. The adults are 18
cm (7 inches) long, and have a wingspan of 38 cm (15 inches). Both sexes are similar in size
and color, upper parts are pale brownish, underparts are white. Nesting occurs on beaches close
to dunes or in other shoreline habitats. Breeding birds on the North Carolina coast are mostly
found from the vicinity of Cape Lookout northward. _
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT .
No suitable breeding habitat exists along the bridge replacement alternatives. Also, a
review of NC Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the subject
project study area. It can be concluded that project construction will have no impact on the
Piping plover.
Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea)
Status: E
Family: Dermochelidae
Listed: 6/2/70
The leatherback sea turtle is a large turtle with a barrel-shaped body, with leathery skin
and paddlelike, clawless appendages. The leatherback sea turtle lacks a hard shell and has five
to seven longitudinal ridges (keels) running the length of its back. Adults approach 2 m (6 ft) in
cam-pace length and average about 360 kg (8001bs). Leatherbacks nest on sandy, ocean-facing
beaches, usually with few rocks or coral and relatively deep near-shore approaches.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat exists along the bridge replacement alternatives. Also, a review of
NC Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the subject project
study area. It can be concluded that project construction will have no impact on the Leatherback
sea turtle.
Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kepi)
Status: E
Family: Cheloniidae
Listed: 12/2/70
The Kemp's ridley sea turtle is a small turtle with a heart-shaped body, usually broad,
keeled carapace which is serrated behind the bridge. Adults approach 56 cm (22 inches) in
8
carapace length and average about 36 kg (80 lbs). The Kemp's ridley sea turtle inhabits shallow
coastal and estuarine waters.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat exists along the bridge replacement alternatives. Also, a review of
NC Natural Heritage Program data revealed no record's of this species in the subject project
study area. It can be concluded that project construction will have no impact on the Kemp's
ridley sea turtle.
Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta)
Status: T
Family: Cheloniidae
Listed: 7/28/78

The Loggerhead turtle is a large turtle with a large head with blunt jaws. Adults average
about 91 kg (2001bs). The Loggerhead turtle inhabits a large range of marine, salt marshes, and
inshore areas.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat exists along the bridge replacement alternatives. Also, a review of
NC Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the subject project
study area. It can be concluded that project construction will have no impact on the Loggerhead
turtle.
Green head turtle (Chelonia mydas)
Status: T
Family: Cheloniidae
Lis d: 7/28/78
The Green sea turtle is a large turtle which approaches 122 cm (4 ft) in length and
average about 200 kg (440 lbs). The Green sea turtle inhabits shallow waters (except when
migrating) inside reefs, bays and inlets.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat exists along the bridge replacement alternatives. Also, a review of
NC Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the subject project
study area. It can be concluded that project construction will have no impact on the Green sea
torte.
9
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia)
Status: - E
Family: Primulaceae
Listed: 6/12/87
Rough-leaved loosestrife is a perennial herb that grows slender stems from a rhizome and
reaches heights of 3 to 6 decimeters. Whorls of 3 to 4'leaves encircle the stem at intervals
beneath the showy yellow flowers. Flowering occurs from mid-May through June, with fruits
present from July through October. Habitat occurs in the ecotones or edges between longleaf
pine uplands and pond pine pocosins (areas of dense shrub and vine growth) usually on a wet,
peaty, poorly drained soil, on moist to seasonally saturated sands and on shallow organic soils
overlaying sand.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The scrub-shrub areas along the project offers suitable habitat for this species. Plant by
plant surveys along the scrub-shrub areas were conducted on May 2, 1994. No plants were
observed. Also, a review of NC Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this
species in the subject project study area. It can be concluded that construction of this project
will not impact this species.
American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana)
Status: E
Family: Scrophulariaceae
Listed: 10/29/92
American Chaffseed is a finely pubescent (to tomentose, unbranched) perennial herb
reaching 3-8 dm tall. The leaves are alternate, sessile, entire, elliptical-lanceolate (to
elliptic-oval) 2-5 cm long and approximately 1 cm wide. Flowering occurs in spring and fruits
in-early summer. Habitat is moist to dry sandy pinelands and oaklands; especially in seasonally
wet pine savannas and pine woodlands.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The woodlands areas along the project offers suitable habitat for this species. Plant by
plant surveys along the forested woodlands were conducted on May 2, 1994. No plants were
observed. Also, a review of NC Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this
species in the subject project study area. It can be concluded that construction of this project
will not impact this species.
Cooley's meadowrue. (Thalictrum coolevi)
Status: E
Family: Ranunculaceae
Listed: 2/7/89
10
Cooley's meadowrue is perennial herb which grows from an underground rhizome. Its
stems are usually I in in height, but sometimes grow as high as 2 m on recently burned sites.
The species' green leaflets are lance-shaped, and less than 2 cm long. Flowering occurs in mid-
to late June, and fruits mature in August or September. Habitat is moist to wet bogs and
savannahs. It grows along fireplow lines, roadside ditches, woodland clearings, and powerline
rights-of-way, and needs some type of disturbance to maintain its open habitat.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The urban/disturbed areas along the project offers suitable habitat for this species. Plant
by plant surveys along these areas and woodland clearings were conducted on May 2, 1994. No
plants were observed. Also, a review of NC Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records
of this species in the subject project study area. It can be concluded that construc`fion of this
project will not impact this species.
Seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus umilus)
Status: T
Family: Amaranthaceae
Listed: 4/7/93
Seabeach amaranth is an annual plant found on Atlantic ocean beaches. The stems are
fleshy and pink-red or reddish, with small rounded leaves that are 1.3 to 2.5 cm in diameter.
The leaves are clustered towards the tip of the stem, are normally a spinach-green color, and
have a small notch at the rounded tip. Flowers and fruits are relatively inconspicuous, borne in
clusters along the stem. Flowering can be from June until autumn. ' Seabeach amaranth occurs
on barrier island beaches, where its primary habitat consists of overwash flats at accreting ends
of islands and lower foredunes and upper strands of noneroding beaches.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat exists along the bridge replacement alternatives. Also, a review of
NC Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the subject project
study area. It can be concluded that project construction will have no impact on the Seabeach
amaranth.
11

4.2.2 Federal Candidate Species
There are twenty-two C2 federal candidate species listed for Duplin-Pender Counties.
The North Carolina status of these species is listed below.
Federal Candidate Species Duplin-Pender Counties
Scientific Name Common Name Habitat NC
Procambarus plumimanus
Dionaea muscipula
OxyRolis tern
orobolus teretifolius
Aimophila aestivalis
Ammodramus henslowii
Fusconaia masoni
Lam silis cariosa
Agrotis buchholzi
Spartiniphag_a carterae
Carex chapmanii
Kalmia cuneata
Macbridea carolinian
a
OxyRolis tern
Pamassia carolinian
a
Plantano Marsiflora
Rhynchospora. thomei
Solidago 12ulchra
Solidatzo verna
Sporobolus teretifolius
Tofeldia labra
Trillium usillum var. usillum
Croatan crayfish Yes W2
Venus flytrap Yes C-SC
Savanna cowbane Yes W1
Wireleaf dropseed NO -° T
Bachman's sparrow No SC
Henslow's sparrow Yes SR
Atlantic pigtoe Yes T
Yellow lampmussel Yes T
Pyxie moth Yes SR
Carter's noctuid moth Yes SR
Chapman's sedge Yes C
White-wicky No E-SC
Carolina bogmint Yes C
Savanna cowbane Yes W1
Carolina grass-of-pamassus Yes E
Pineland plantain Yes E
Thorne's beakrush Yes C
Carolina goldenrod Yes E
Spring-flowering goldenrod Yes E
Wireleaf dropseed Yes T
Smooth bog-asphodel ' Yes C
Carolina trillium Yes E
NC Status: SC, E, T, SR,W1, W2 and C denote Special Concern, Endangered, Threatened,
Watch Category 1, Watch Category 2, and Significantly Rare Candidate, respectively.
Candidate 2 (C2) species are defined as taxa for which there is some evidence of
vulnerability, but for which there is not enough data to warrant a listing of Endangered,
Threatened, Proposed Endangered, or Proposed Threatened at this time. These species are
mentioned here for information purposes, should they become federally protected in the future.
Specific surveys for any of these species were not conducted, nor were these species observed
during the site visit.
12
4.2.3 State Protected Species
Plant or animal species which are on the state list as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or
Special Concern (SC) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered Species
Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202.
12 et seq.). NC Natural Heritage Program records indicate no known populations of the state
listed species occurring within 1.6 km (1 mile) of the Project site.
13
REFERENCES
Beal, E.O. 1977. A Manual of Marsh and Aquatic Vascular Plants of North Carolina. The North
Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OB,S-79/3 1.
Y
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, Technical
Report Y-87-1, USACOEWES, Vicksburg, Miss.'
Gibbs, L.C. 1987. Weeds of the Southern United States. Univ. of Georgia College of
Agriculture.
Lee, D.S., J.B. Funderburg, Jr. and M.K. Clark 1982. ADistribution Survey of North Carolina
Mammals. Museum of Natural History, North Carolina.
LeGrand, H.E. and S.P. Hall. 1993. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species
of North Carolina North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, J.R. Harrison, III, and J. Dermid. 1986. Amphibians
and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia, The University of North Carolina Press.
Murie, O.J. 1975. A Field Guide to Animal Tracks. Houghton Miffin Co., Boston.
NCDNRCD. 1993. Classifications and Water Quality Standards Assigned to the Water of the
CQe Fear River Basin. Division of Environment Management, Raleigh, N.C..
Peterson, R.T. 1980. A Field Guide to the Birds. Houghton Miffin Co., Boston.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Jeulings. 1986. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of
North Carolina Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina. Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, N.C.
SCS. 1959. Soil Sun= of Duplin Countt, North Carolina Soil Conservation Service.
SCS. 1990. Soil Survey of Pender County North Carolina. Soil Conservation Service.
Weakley, A.S. 1993. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr.. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia
and M=Iand, The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, N.C.
14