20020631 Ver 1_Complete File_20020424

1733
1703 ? •?, •.

i
•
1734 '?? 1712
1732

• i % 1710 N
i
i i ! i N •

1710 O
s
1732 1735 i 7
i 17
11
1728 ; 41

S 1702
1 6 Potters p
CabinV ! 1 ;' ?• 1736 i Hill
7 1710
1716
• 9
v? 3 ' I 1717
i • O

1700 ` 2 1

1726 • 9
1700 6 i

` 1718
?`? N
,• ? F•`• Cry

N ^ . _ _
1719 1, 2 i 1. 1
170 1719
1744
Bridge No. ll
41

1727
N
ti 5
1726 1720 -. ' - h
-
-1739 nl i •tZ' BEULAVILLE
J 1,
• Pop. 1,191 6 1715 1
1702 4 q 1721 ".1
rt0(0 1,
-
11,.•-'" 1720
?
% .
` ' .4 Sandlin
wWhaleys
- 1961 24
.` N .8
- 6 • 9
' `• ;
`•. 1835 ' '
1805 A
' 8 1963 ( n • G
4
1962 18321.
1724
i • -
.....
1806 1715
9 ` 1 s
1724.6 1833 ••.... v
1800
• 1

V 1

801
CO
4 1802
r 1835
1964 1800 1804

1965 i' Quinn s Store W -

North Carolina
Department of Transportation
p Division of Highways
Planning & Environmental Branch
Duplin County
Replace Bridge No, ll on NC 241
Over Limestone Creek
B-3165
Figure 1

III 36 I _
Z?
` 173 ?i
•

• 1 Cem
•/?0 /
X J I -

i 72 bin Ch
1710
ems.../ o

',;-- _ Ii Gum Branch Ch •? I /

Cem 1717
700
J , rl O / ? p _ J Elustgr,'
I

Trailer \ -_\ +? ,.. o -L
Park

+ _ `
it, /
_ --
lime
Creek ^ -+
\
? `,`
_ • °c:Cem Quarr .. ; _..
?
M .n,. y \
210 Iii +

- -?. East
i ffiDlln
&4J
111

10.a 1

Thomas s
17201

?p

+ / •
1729 • ° `\ m

tit
CC em,
111 Triangle
171
-• ,
/ ?s `
Stone
•
Q... e
r
Tr l
Drive-in ! 1
•
\`?
BM
)22.5 ;Theater i BM
7
i 127.• • ?/ Q.
I I
•.J?. •' e ' eulaVl
Blle
1721
O
1961 \. 11 . • .
r r I (BM 26.3)
. .
/

27.8
•
•
?
?•..?. i ? ? 1961
?':
a' \6 ?
• \ ? BM ?
•" 1124 ' Cem:il Cem' 26.5
BM 27.0 II 1802
• 2e.o `ms:(J?? ??\ 0 / O

' 1801 1 ...

25.0 1VT*# . 'r?Cerrf
CONVERT
SCAII
Feet
19000
oa72
14000
57'30"
13000
12000
11000
10000
5
e 9000
c
6000
i
0,
7000
6000
I
9000
69
1000
3000
2000
1000
h
0
0
Feet Mt
1 3'
1 V
3 9
9 15.
6 18:
7 21:
8 1:
9 21•
10 3 0=
To convert lee,
multiply by Y
a
D
D
a
o°
0
m o
•
e
w
K1
e
c1

e ?t
?1 t
e ? •
0
Q

BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
11/2/98
TIP PROJECT: B-3165 DIVISION: Three
F. A. PROJECT: BRSTP - 241(1) COUNTY: Duplin
STATE PROJECT: 8.1242201 ROUTE: NC 241
DESCRIPTION: Replacement of Bridge No. 11 on NC 241 over Limestone Creek
PROJECT PURPOSE: replace obsolete bridge
PROJECT U.S.G.S. QUAD SHEET(S): Beulaville Quad
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION: Rural Maior Collector
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST .......................................................................... $ 450,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST .......................................................................... $ 45,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ...................................................................................... $ 00,000
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................................................................... $ 495,000
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 3900 VPD; DESIGN YEAR (2025) 6900 VPD
TTST 5 % DUAL 10 %
EXISTING ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: Two lane shoulder section, 20 foot
pavement, grassed shoulders
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 36.3 METERS WIDTH 10.4 METERS
119 FEET 34.0 FEET
COMMENTS:
4
020,631
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDo TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
April 1, 2002
f
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers s
P.O. Box 1890 APR 4 2002
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTN: Mr. Dave Timpy
NCDOT Coordinator
Subject: Duplin County, Bridge No. 11 over Limestone Creek on NC 241, TIP No.
B-3165, State Project No. 8.124220 1, Federal Aid No. BRSTP-241(1).
Dear Sir:
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning documents for the
subject project. This project consists of a bridge replacement at the existing location,
with traffic being detoured along existing roads during construction. The existing bridge
is 36.3 m (119 ft) long and 10.4 m (34 ft) wide. The proposed bridge is 48.8 m (160 ft)
long and 9.6 m (32 ft) wide. The existing bridge is composed of concrete, steel, and
timber. There is potential for components of the bridge to be dropped into waters of the
United States. The resulting temporary fill associated with this bridge is 80 cubic yards
(61 cubic meters). This project can be classified as Case 2, which allows no work at all
in the water during moratorium periods associated with fish migration, spawning, and
larval recruitment into nursery areas. Approximately 0.28 ha (0.7 ac) of wetlands will be
impacted by this project. A field meeting was held for this project on February 26, 2002.
At this meeting it was decided that no mitigation will be required fot. this project since
over half of the wetland impacts involve mechanized clearing. The michanized clearing
involves no grubbing.
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 67 FR 2020, 2082; January 15, 2002. The General
Conditions of 67 FR 2020; January 15, 2002 will be followed in the construction of the
project.
The NCDOT requests that you review this work for authorization under

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: WWWDOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27899-1548
Nationwide Permit No. 23. It is anticipated that 401 General Certification No. 3107
(Approved Categorical Exclusions) will apply to this project, and the attached
information is being provided to the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Matt Haney at
[phone], extension 333.
Sincerelys
M-4tv l
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: Mr. David Franklin, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Garland Pardue, USFWS, Raleigh
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. N.L. Graf, P.E., FHWA
Mr. Omar Sultan, Program Development Branch
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. Timothy Rountree, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. H. Allen Pope, P.E., Division 3 Engineer
Mr. Bill Goodwin, PD&EA
Mr. Mason Herndon, Division 3 Environmental Officer

VICINITY MAP
M
co
Q
Z

N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DUPLIN COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1242201
B-3165 - REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE
NO. 11 ON NC 241 OVER
LIMESTONE CREEK
SHEET OF 12/21/01
LEGEND
--WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY
XXX LIVE STAKES

WETLAND
?--W L X X
O BOULDER
DENOTES FILL IN - - - COIR FIBER ROLLS
WETLAND
®

® DENOTES FILL IN 5 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
SURFACE WATER
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
PROPOSED BRIDGE
(POND)
® DENOTES TEMPORARY PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
FILL IN WETLAND
® DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
DENOTES TEMPORARY (DASHED LINES DENOTE
FILL IN SURFACE WATER EXISTNG STRUCTURES)
• • DENOTES MECHANIZED
• •'? • • • CLEARING
SINGLE TREE
E- ?
FLOW DIRECTION
TB WOODS LINE
-1, TOP OF BANK
- WE - EDGE OF WATER ® DRAINAGE INLET

- - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
ROOTWAD
- F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
-- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
VANE
- - NG - - NATURAL GROUND
- PI` - - PROPERTY LINE RIP RAP
-TDE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT RIP RAP ENERGY
DISSIPATOR BASIN
-POE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
-EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED BUFFER ZONE
- - - - - BUFFER ZONE
PLANT BOUNDARY
- ------• WATER SURFACE
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DUPLIN COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1242201
B-3165 - REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE
NO. It ON NC 241 OVER
LIMESTONE CREEK
SHEET OF 12/21/01

O W ^'
\
? ? a

*
R
?.
e a
?
F ?
,
te a
o a
W a4
c
i c o p „?? .
(
a ? ?
° 0 w
"
---z -- - zx
a o?
U H z"
w u z
N I ?
I ?
FO Z W 0
v w
0.00 a0W w
W ? I
I I F? Aa ?.? O

t?`i

I I

i

w
J
a o

W
I
I
AA
z F

W

4
d
I
I
I
I
I ?
C,?
`?
`? w
w

?
I z M

W
W I
I ? I
I
I I
I I F
I
W I
I
I i b
I (?
I
m I
I I
I
OO I
I I
I
W
I I
I
I
,?\ I I
I
--- I
0
co ce) t z:
W

tin

1 I
I

2
I
I ? 07
? I
I
I I
I
\
I I I
a I I
? N I
I 1
I k-?

~
m I a
1 N I
I
C
i
U I V
I Z I
I
P W I
I
? I
I
,Q d
?i I
W I
z I ? I
m m ?
E
w ?V-
0 >
O
o
of >
m w
, *1
?rr «
Z w w +J,
?-CO C, g
V)
0 C)
W~ co
o
w «
N
o

*
a_
o «
a

O «
o
v ?
«
«
«

= x
F- « .
W •I
Q W
W
cr U
w w
W ti
Q o
N +Ic .
!?
*
W U O
a (7
a
o «
«
Z J O
«
a
?
w
O
r,
,, j •
* +r

O Y
Q N
in
a
Z -, o

*'1
«
*

? «I

O
O
+
N
«.
- V
O? «
J
Z
c

o
Cl)

W

d «

Z .
?
*I

O
N
M
Nm
?N

W
«
*
«
*
«
«
«
+i
*
«
«
«
«
*
«
«*
*
«
«
«
*
CD
* Z
N
* X
W

W
z ?
..1 A ?
W
p.`a xa UD
C
w w w ?
Aa ??
.n
«
«
** o
0
o o
A .?

oa H o

x ° ow
zx o? z?U
Ho U wzo
z
wz ;y ?
.<0
o
a? as W
w> IoW
cA ? z w
U W

w z M
z
O
N
Y
U
Q -
O
a-
J O
W (n
Q O
2
U_ Qp
O

O
z
a;
J?
W)-
~
?i~

I
OS+: I I z W o
I O A
m
? ?? ?? Wow
b F O O W
ado ° * in ON 7F?U
0 00 O + o I (u WUW
Z r r?i * E-40 zU Wz0
w
* I * 00 0.0 a0W
* a? Aa C4 a
*'" * C) W y C p F
N 40 z A A z W
* ?' * U W
W *N *N W z
N
N !
Q CD
?Lj Z o ?. z
m
a A a
J L w
N N
A
W o
,N
X zzz
a d * * v, a
0
z wa W
w
m co ti ?o N* I ; a U a s
CO 0
31
O in 0 z N* I * W * N
co o O „ *N
W U * N *N*
N N N
*
Ofo ** * *NN
* I * N N
1k
N E 0_ * N
J co F- N
OQ W N ?
LL J N f - * N
? N
CD LL1 O W O W
J *N Q N
U ?0 ~ ?
O
M W O LL- Q * I N X
N D
C 7 Ln '- a_ N N
Z W V) a? u* Q ? N 00 ll?Z
In M
In v/ J
Q O N _ ? N N 3 W
O X0 JO J * L? I * W
a_ W 0_ Ln U N N N Z ?1
O V) N Q
cr O * N J rn
a- 4, 3 N W
^ C * cr L7
\ N kS- r °°
1~D V
???0! «. NN co
s?iy 0 co
m o
9ss + 7 . L _
? /I o
0

M
b
C?
b
Cfl? C11?
W
> ?
0
.n
0
cr
En
zz
F
m
w3
?I
N
? d
= V)
a
0
?r
z
0
F-1
H?
as
0
Z 0-4
E?+ 0
4. Z
00
rn
A
U
z
H?
z?
U °D
H
U
040
Aa
w
A ?
c?>W
00w
z?U
Wz0
U F-4
aZ 00
a0 H
."o W
M x
y
up
zz
`n F
wa
M
b 0
® w
?d w

a;
00-W'VIS '3N17NJIM
0 0
o

?w
Fa; ?
U
0
0
N ?
= US
0
?n
0
0
z
0
H?
x
R?
zx
Ho
44z
00
HW
W
a?
A
U
z
N
0
H
zW
ati
Aa
W
c?
A
mW
00
N "
z'
Wza
a0
W-
aoa
?z
o
M
W
? O
zZ
M
w 3
M
rT.
0
PT M
® W
x

0 0

C4
cv
0 0
0
C4 ..
a
N
N
w
0
w
W
PROPERTY OWNER
NAME AND ADDRESS
OWNER'S NAME ADDRESS
Bobby Dare Lanier, P.O. Bo: 46
of U= Beulaville, NC 28518
Michael T. Jackson, of U:
P.O.Box 678
Beulaville, NC 28518
Norman E. Mercer, eE U:
-and-

Jackie L. Creech, eE U:
P.O.Box 21
Beulaville, NC 28518
P.O.Box 51
Beulaville, NC 28518
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DUPLIN COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1242201
B-3165 - REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE
NO. 11 ON NC 241 OVER
LIMESTONE CREEK
SHEET OF
12®21/01

O

U
) a

U.
U. W
C U
z W
O p

K
_ m
O? }o OOw
j Z
U
v
_
?0
0ao
z
wzO
U
z
?
a`
3
o
o
O c
o Lu

00 ?z

Z m

LL
O
U
.
w
2
v)
in

L=L ?

M (U

C' d N

2. 2
LL O c o

O
U c N m
Q N
R

W °

? N
m
0
o
g
to
yt
?U

CI C 0
U
H
?
N ?
n
V u'? U E
Q
a
? = o
- LL
N
W a
U
EccO
Q F?
3
W
U
i °

Q v
v
i v
C U
? ao m
N LL
_ O
C •_• fV0
N
`-
LL
C O
C .C?
C C ? U
l7 O O
N
ftl
0)
d
U
H ?
a O o
V c
m
o L) 3
? z c
u

j

> LL
?
U

d

N
C ?
C
O
O ?
p

LLL ar
c C
E E
? Y
C Y
C
L? N
U N INS co
2? w w
U
m
3 m
3
?
m v
m
0 0

o
CO ? L2 o
N

? 2 0 0
r O
N J
O Q
Z O
w
w> oa 0?
U `O
H
1 4

f CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-3165
State Project No. 8.1242201 Federal Project No. BRSTP-241(1) 020631
A. Project Description:
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 11 on NC 241 over Limestone Creek in Duplin
County. The bridge will be replaced with a new bridge 48.8 meters (160 feet) in
length. The bridge will be 9.6 meters (32 feet) wide. This width will provide for a
7.2-meter (24-foot) travelway and a 1.2-meter (4-foot) offset on each side of the
bridge. The new bridge will be placed at approximately the same location and
elevation as the existing bridge.
There will be approximately 100 meters (330 feet) of approach work to the south and
125 meters (410 feet) of approach work to the north. The approach roadway will
consist of two 3.6-meter (12-foot) travel lanes and a shoulder width of at least 2.4
meters (8 feet). Of this shoulder width, 0.6 meters (2 feet) will be paved, resulting in
a total pavement width of 8.4 meters (28 feet). The total shoulder width will be 1.0
meter (3 feet) wider where guardrail is warranted. Traffic will be detoured along
existing roads during construction (See Figure 1). Traffic, especially trucks, will be
detoured along NC 111 and NC 11. Motorists familiar with the area will seek shorter
alternate routes.
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 11 was completed in 1950 and has a sufficiency rating of 65.3 out of a
possible 100. At the time of programming into the Transportation Improvement
Program, the sufficiency rating was under 50. Since then, some bents were added
between spans to increase load capacity. This resulted in the increased
sufficiency rating. The deck of Bridge No. 11 is 10.4 meters (34 feet) wide.
Bridge No. 11 is currently not posted with weight restrictions for single vehicles
or truck-tractor semi-trailers. The primary deficiency is the poor condition of the
substructure and the superstructure. Approximately 10% of the traffic is dual
tired vehicles (DT) and 5% is truck-tractor semi-trailers (TTST). For these
reasons, Bridge No. 11 needs to be replaced.
C. Proposed Improvements:
The following Type II improvements which apply to the project are circled:
Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking,
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing pavement (3R
and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments

d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
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)
'. 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
3O 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
Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of right-
of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
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.
I
2

11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction is
not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no significant noise
impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land acquisition
loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and protective buying will be
permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited number of parcels. These types
of land acquisition qualify for a CE only where the acquisition will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in alignment for planned construction
projects, which may be required in the NEPA process. No project development
on such land may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.
D. Special Project Information:
Estimated Costs:
Permanent Structure $ 421,000
Roadway & Approaches $ 150,000
Structure Removal $ 38,000
Engineering & Contingencies $ 91,000
Right of Way $ 15,000
Total $ 715,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 3900 vehicles per day
TTST - 5%
Dual - 10%
Design Speed:
100 km/h (60 mph)
Functional Classification:
NC 24.1 is classified as a Rural Major Collector Route in the Statewide Functional
Classification system.
Bridge Demolition:
Bridge No. 11 is located on NC 241 over Limestone Creek in Duplin County. The bridge
deck is composed of reinforced concrete on steel I-beams. The substructure is composed of 7
interior bents (4 all wooden bents and 3 with wood piles and concrete caps) and 2 end bents
which are composed of timber piles with reinforced concrete caps. There is potential for
components of the bridge to be dropped into "Waters of the United States" during construction.
The resulting temporary fill associated with Bridge No. I 1 is 61.2 cubic meters (80 cubic yards).
Division Office Comments:
Due to the presence of High Quality Wetlands, the Division Construction Engineer
supports the chosen alternate and proposed method for detouring traffic during construction.

Biologists have determined that provision of an on-site detour (estimated cost $288.000) would
have an unacceptable impact on the swamp ecosystem.
E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type 11 actions
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any unique or
important natural resource? X
(2) Does the project involve habitat where federally listed
endangered or threatened species may occur? X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? ?
X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-third (1 /3) of an acre and have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland takings been ?
evaluated? X
(5) Will the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service lands? ?
X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)? ?
X
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? X
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(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)? X
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? X
4

f
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required?
X
(1 1) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulator- doodway? X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? X
SOCIAL. ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business? X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental effect on any minority
or low-income population? X
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the ?
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control?
X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/or land
use of adjacent property? X
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)? ?
X
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing ?
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge be
replaced at its existing location (along the
existing facility) and will all construction proposed in
association with the bridge replacement project be contained on ?
the existing facility? X
5

(26) Is there substantial controversv on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws
relating to the environmental aspects of the project? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places?
X
(29) Will the project affect anv archaeological remains, which are
important to history or pre-history? ? X
(30) 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)? X
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as
defined by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation
Act of 1965, as amended? X
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or
adjacent to a river designated as a component of or
proposed for inclusion in the Natural System of Wild and ?
Scenic Rivers? X
F.
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E should be
Additional supporting documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
# 2 - Alligator mississippiensis (American alligator)
Threatened Species
Environmental specialists Mary-Margaret McKinney and Wendee Smith
surveyed this site on October 13, 1999 for the American alligator, however
none were observed. Habitat for the alligator is present in the project area.
The NCNHP database contains no records of existing populations of
American alligator in the project area.
below.
6
G. CE Approval
TIP Proiect No.
State Project No.
Federal-Aid Proiect No
Project Description:
See Part A. page 1.
B-3165
8.1242201
BRSTP-241(1)
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
TYPE II(A)
X TYPE II(B)
Approved:
R-18-00 '5e'Qf `v1
Date Assistant Manager, Lubin Prevatt
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
8'-/46-0c) l td Ct ,1 0- 011'0
Date Project Planning Unit Head, Wayne Elliott
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
8-15-00 C.
Date Project Developm nt Engineer, Robin Young
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
For Type II(B) projects only:
8-21--oo
Date
Federal Highway Administration
7

v
- .3 9 4 1116
1500
f
r i 5 -6
1546 4 n 1o
/
/V
>n. I_
?
s 1506'. .., ". iJ.. eetn.AY `v
.. • a
` 155 /? .116] 1
a
•.. i ?, Ills
1194
HI
_
V
,
t -..? v;, } C? 1555 :}: _ 1551
4
N .2
^ II18
'(.? \'
e 1111 193 1203 1
v 1517
•. 54
1550 7 J •2 J1113
. 1 5x.
/
`
T
- ?. •.? - -. yt?
1..,. - 1
, _
e
?.. °?r Hepron 1? ? ?`, ? _
Ch
Bewroam

1614 1J I I 1501 ITh e9

I W' 0 VMSf
- - IIp9?..? /
O
1113
•
'?
-?

l _ to
\ 9 t.
j
t 17v< MNA"plCt p. I
?
` ` r.. ..
r - 704 y _
r
.T,
I A ? _ -
i 1705 1
'
m8
It 1 1779 ^b
-41 -
1102
1707 N ^ 110! ..l" _
.
\..
; Y a• 7p? 1103
_ , 1704 Y Cr. ?..
-..
Q
Q r

` 1740 N
O
/' }
- Leon
?? / r I
t/. 1105
1... Y 1102
1146
_
90 >'` r? 705 1 t
0 A
}.. - `. Smith
`. ^ 1 r4Ct.W.1 i 1101

4
/ 9-
.

- 1772
DLV. -it 1103
1 1 171
1
a t `s :
1 148
? ` W
N 1
1709•t
_ .._..'
11
' 1
l'
5 O
i
?'• .... ..- 1 703
i
i 1 N
.
i?
.7
I ? •t- av .. / 1146 i
L..
1701 •. yl
` t 0 1710
1732 is
N
1
r
q

17 3 171
?3 1149
1 ?.. ?_ I
2.9
r 1147
C
i 34 1712 r t??

i
i ,
-
1701 /
?L
it

7..10
10
p
,
ti
•
? 1732
`
/ .'
ir
r. 170 .,_
i
1 i 171I
i
i
as .. ?. ` /; %
.1 ; i •. •1r ..
. '
'
-l : ,'
,
FMI
'
•'`
-i'

...,
am
Gp
V
r
;
? ;
,,
,
1710
cftm?h

!
1720 t 1
' ,.._

1-..
1741
'.
` ?}r.?'
'1 ? t • i. _ ? LLB
•??

. 44
1
J7._.
111 -
! 1 -
4 A e 3124
Bridge
11
No
t ' 1 ? BEUTAVILLE
`• .
t.o
P? , 1701 i 170 !
?'- 1 POP. 1,210 's
4 4 IL 111

't
4 7
`
e ??'• - M 1 4
1720 i ..1.., ?..

1702 ..J,'
tool - M919M

\ /• .? . Ye
1983 1105 ' t.e
?
1192- s t .._ \
•• j! a 1
.
'
Q'
' r ? 1002 Y
1{0 IeJS `
V
1904 . .1800
North Carolina Department of
Transportation
Diviston of Highways
Project Development &
Environmental Analysis Branch
Duplin County
Replace Bridge No. 11 on NC 241
Over Limestone Creek
B-3165
Figure 1
I I I
f...wSTATF ':?
?d
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
December 28, 1998
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge #11 on NC 241 over Limestone Creek,
Duplin County, B-3165, ER 99-7692
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
.t
If
?' J r
1998
On December 10, 1998, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning
the above project. We reported our available information on historic architectural
and archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations.
NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend that
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 g?3
Nicholas L. Graf
12/28/98, Page 2
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: "GV. D. Gilmore
B. Church
T. Padgett

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,=
-512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Robin Young, Project Planning Engineer
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: March 23, 2000
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacement in Duplin County. TIP No. B-3165.
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have
reviewed the information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the
subject project. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
On bridge replacement pro ec!s of this scope our stardard recommendations are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not
require work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment.
The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human
and wildlife passage beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and
does not block navigation by canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the
stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed
back to original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the
Bridge Replacement Memo 2 March 23, 2000
project. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
native tree species should be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'.
If possible, when using temporary structures the area should be cleared but not
grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other
mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact, allows the
area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of
the steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the
option of requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and
we can recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist
Mr. Tim Savidge should be notified. Special measures to protect these
sensitive species may be required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service for information on requirements of the Endangered
Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy
entitled "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12,
1997)" should be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
If corrugated metal pipe arches or concrete box culverts are used:
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for fish passage. Generally, this means
that the culvert or pipe invert is buried at least 1 foot below the natural stream
bed. If multiple cells are required the second and/or third cells should be
placed so that their bottoms are at stream bankful stage (similar to Lyonsfield
design). This will allow sufficient water depth in the culvert or pipe during
normal flows to accommodate fish movements. If culverts are long, baffle
systems are required to trap gravel and provide resting areas for fish and other
aquatic organisms.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed
to remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated so that no channel realignment or
widening is required. Widening of the stream channel at the inlet or outlet of
structures usually causes a decrease in water velocity causing sediment
deposition that will require future maintenance.
4. Riprap should not be placed on the stream bed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same
location with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be
designed and located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to
avoid destabilizing stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old
structure should be removed and the approach fills removed from the 100-year
Bridge Replacement Memo 3 March 23. 2000
floodplain. Approach fills should be removed down to the natural ground elevation. The
area should be stabilized with grass and planted with native tree species. If the area that
is reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the area to wetlands. If
successful, the site may be used as wetland mitigation for the subject project or other
projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
B-3165 - Duplin County - Bridge No. 1 1 over Limestone Creek. Limestone Creek
provides good fishing for sunfish, catfish and pickerel. The stream does not support
anadromous fish. Our site visit revealed high-quality bottomland hardwood wetlands
on both sides of the existing bridge. NCDOT should attempt to avoid and on-site
detour. We prefer this bridge be replaced with a bridge. To reduce impacts to local
fish populations, we recommend that an in-water work moratorium be observed from
April 1 to September 30. If a silt curtain is used to contain the all-bottom-disturbing
activities, the moratorium could be shortened to April l to June 30.
We request that NCDOT routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife
resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. The NCDOT should install and
maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the project and prevent
wet concrete from contacting water in or entering into these streams. Replacement of
bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box culverts, is
recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along
streambanks, reducing habitat fragmentation and vehicle related mortality at highway
crossings.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding
bridge replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity
to review and comment on these projects.

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Duplin County
Bridge No. 11 on NC 241
Over Limestone Creek
Federal Project BRSTP-241(1)
State Project 8.1242201
TIP No. B-3165
Commitments Developed Through Project Development and Design
Roadside Environmental Unit, Division 3 Construction, Structure Design Unit
NCDOT will adhere to the Best Management Practices (BMPs) for "Bridge Demolition
and Removal" during the removal of Bridge No. 11.
Division 3 Construction, Roadside Environmental Unit, Hydraulics Unit
Limestone Creek provides good fishing for sunfish, catfish, and pickerel. To reduce
impacts to local fish populations, an in-water construction moratorium is required from
April 1 to September 30. If a silt curtain is used to contain the bottom-disturbing activities,
the moratorium could be shortened to April I to June 30. Sediment curtains will be used to
minimize impacts from turbidity.
Division 3 Construction, Structure Design Unit
In order to minimize impacts to wetlands, top down construction will be used during the
"construction of Bridge No. 11.
Green Sheet
Programmatic Categorical Exclusion
August 15, 2000
Page 1 of 1
II
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
for the
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 11 ON NC 241
OVER LIMESTONE CREEK
DUPLIN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP No. B-3165
State Project No. 8.1242201
NCDOT Consulting Project No. 98-LM-07
Langley and McDonald Project Number 1960024-207.00
Prepared for the
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Natural Resources, Permits and Mitigation Unit
One South Wilmington Street, Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Attn: Phillip Todd, Environmental Specialist
Issued: December 1999
9 Langley and McDonald
Engineers - Planners • Surveyors - Landscape Architects - Environmental Consultants
5544 Greenwich Road • Virginia Beach, VA 23462 • [phone] - FAX: [phone] • L&MQiangleyeng.com
II TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................. ......................................................
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................... ......................................................
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................... ........................................................1
1.1 Project Description .................................................................. ........................................................1
1.2 Methodology ........................................................................... ........................................................1
1.3 Terminology and Definitions .................................................. ........................................................2
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ......................................................... ........................................................3
2.1 Regional Characteristics .......................................................... .......................................................3
2.2 Soils ......................................................................................... .......................................................3
2.3 Water Resources ...................................................................... .......................................................3
2.3.2 Physical Characteristics of Surface waters ..............................................................................4
2.3.3 Water Quality .................................................................... .......................................................4
2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ............................................ .......................................................5
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ................................................................ .......................................................6
3.1 Biotic Communities ................................................................. .......................................................6
3. 1.1 Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp .................................. .......................................................6
3.1.3 Aquatic Community .......................................................... .......................................................7
3.1.4 Wildlife ............................................................................. .......................................................7
3.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ............................................ .......................................................7
3.2.1 Terrestrial Impacts ............................................................ .......................................................7
3.2.2 Aquatic Impacts ................................................................ .......................................................8
4.0 Jurisdictional Topics .................................................................... .......................................................9
4.1 Waters of the United States ...................................................... .......................................................9
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface waters ............... .......................................................9
4.1.2 Permits .............................................................................. .......................................................9
4.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation ....................... .....................................................10
4.2 Rare and Protected Species ...................................................... .....................................................11
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species .............................................. .....................................................11
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species ....... .....................................................13
5.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................ .....................................................15
NCDOT NRTR - Replacement of Bridge No. 11 on NC 241 over Limestone Creek December 1999
Langley and McDonald, Inc. Project No. 1960021-207.00 Page n
,
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Estimated area impacts to terrestrial communities .....................................................................8
Table 2. Federal and state protection statuses for federally listed species in Duplin County .................12
LIST OF FIGURES
(Figure follows page listed)
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................1
Figure 2. Aerial Photograph of Project .....................................................................................................1
NCDOT NRTR - Replacement of Bridge No. I I on NC 241 over Limestone Creek December 1999
Langley and McDonald, Inc. Project No. 1960024-207.00 Page iii
,I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in the preparation of a
Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the replacement of Bridge Number 11 on NC 241 over Limestone
Creek in Duplin. The purpose of this report is to inventory and describe the natural resources which
occur within the proposed right-of-way boundaries and which are likely to be impacted by the proposed
action. Assessments of the nature and severity of probable impacts to these natural resources are
provided, along with recommendations for measures that will minimize resource impacts.
This report identifies areas of particular environmental concern that may affect the selection of a
preferred alignment or may necessitate changes in design criteria. Such environmental concerns should
be addressed during the preliminary planning stages of the proposed project in order to maintain
environmental quality in the most efficient and effective manner. The analyses contained in this
document are relevant only in the context of the existing preliminary project boundaries and design. If
design parameters and criteria change, additional field investigations may be necessary.
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project calls for the replacement of Bridge Number 11 on NC 241 over Limestone Creek
in Duplin County (Figure 1). The existing two-lane shoulder cross-section is 10.4 meters (34.0 feet)
wide. The proposed cross-section is a two-lane shoulder section as well. The current and proposed
right-of-way for this project is 18.3 m (60.0 ft). Project length is approximately 91.4 m (300.0 ft) from
either end of the existing bridge.
The current structure is an open deck with a reinforced concrete floor on steel I-beams. The bridge has
reinforced cap and pile bents and end bents. The bridge is 36.3 m (119.0 ft) long and 10.4 m (34.0 ft)
wide. Limestone Creek is approximately 35.1 m (115.0 ft) wide at the bridge crossing. The potential
exists for parts of all eight spans of the bridge deck to be dropped into the water during removal of this
bridge. The resulting temporary fill into "waters of the United States" will constitute no more than
(61.2 cubic meters) 80 cubic yards of material. All temporary fill material will be removed from the
creek as soon as practicable as part of the bridge removal process.
One alternative is being considered for this project (Figure 2). The alternative is to replace the existing
bridge in-place with a new bridge. During construction traffic will be maintained on-site on a
temporary structure to the west.
1.2 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Published resource information pertaining to the
project area was gathered and reviewed. Resources utilized in this preliminary investigation of the
project area include:
NCDOT NRTR - Replacement of Bridge No. I I on NC 241 over Limestone Creek December 1999
Langley and McDonald, Inc. Project No. 1960024-207.00 Page I
,I
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
,LM Division of Highways
Planning & Environmental Branch
DupGn County
Replace Bridge No, ll on NC 241
Over limestone Creek
B-3165
OOOW-
$ 1733 .'
1703
i
01
iv 1734
N
1732

1710
1 i 1732 1735
1728 ;
N i

S 1702
i
CabinV ° 1736
7 1710
.9

1 Figure 1
4 i 1700
-4
?v
1726 j i-
N ^ i 0 I11
170 •9
1744 Bridge No, 11
1727
ti 5 . 5 1726
1739 15 i'
5 1. 0!
1702 .4 • 4
J Oro.,. -'!
;•='' 1961
8 1963
1962
'1 i•? ?• 1724
9 • 1724 , 6 \
1800
q
1964 1800
1965 O
833 1
1
1721 •
-' 2
1 1720 D
.4 Sandlin
24 WWhaleys
N 8
1835 '
•`? ^ , 6, 1805 a
.4
• 0
N 1806 1715
s ?
i
1712

1710 N
0
i 1711
i ?
i
Potters p
i Hill
1716
1717
i 'O
i i
y 1700 • ? !•
1718
Creek
-•............
?•..
1719 ?• 2
1719
i
41
1720 `,•-'- h
BEULAVILLE
i POP. 1,191 .6 1715 i
1801
1835
1
Quinns Store \. I
1.9

• U.S. Geological Survey 7.5" quadrangle maps (Beulaville, NC),
• NCDOT aerial photographs of the project area (1:120),
• USDA Soil Conservation Service, currently known as Natural Resource Conservation Service,
Soil Survey ofDuplin County, North Carolina (1905),
• N.C. Division of Water Quality, Cape Fear Basintivide Management Plan, October 1996.
Information concerning the occurrence of federally and state protected species in the study area was
obtained from the US Fish and Wildlife Service's "Threatened and Endangered Species in North
Carolina" (15 September 1999) and from the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare
species and unique habitats. NCNHP files were reviewed for documented occurrences of state or
federally listed species and locations of significant natural areas.
Langley and McDonald, Inc. Environmental Specialists Mary Margaret McKinney and Wendee Smith
conducted general field surveys along the proposed alignment on 13 October 1999. These surveys
were conducted under abnormal circumstances as water levels were at abnormally high levels due to
rainfall and flooding associated with Hurricane Dennis and Floyd.
Water resources were identified and their physical characteristics were recorded. Plant communities
and their associated wildlife were also identified and described. Terrestrial community classifications
generally follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible, and plant taxonomy follows Radford et
al. (1968). Animal taxonomy follows Martof et al. (1980), Palmer and Braswell (1995), Potter et al.
(1980), and Webster et al. (1985). Vegetative communities were mapped utilizing aerial photography
of the project site. Predictions regarding wildlife community composition involved general qualitative
habitat assessment based on existing vegetative communities. Wildlife identification involved using a
variety of observation techniques including qualitative habitat assessment based on vegetative
communities, active searching, identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks and
burrows). Cursory surveys of aquatic organisms were conducted and tactile searches for benthic
organisms were administered as well. Organisms captured during these searches were identified and
then released.
Jurisdictional wetlands, if present, were identified and evaluated based on criteria established in the
Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987) and Guidance for Rating the Values of
Wetlands in North Carolina (NCDEM 1995). Wetlands were classified according to Cowardin et al.
(1979).
1.3 Terminology and Definitions
For the purposes of this document, the following terms are used concerning the limits of natural
resources investigations. "Project area" denotes the area bounded by the proposed right-of-way limits
along the full length of the project alignment. "Project vicinity" is defined as an area extending 1.0
km (0.6 mi) on all sides of the project area, and "Project region" denotes an area equivalent in size to
the area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map (i.e., 163.3 sq. km (61.8 sq. mi)).
NCDOT NRTR - Replacement of Bridge No. I I on NC 241 over Limestone Creek December 1999
Langley and McDonald, Inc. Project No. 1960021-207.00 Page 2
n
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources that occur in the project area are discussed below with respect to possible
environmental concerns. Soil properties and site topography significantly influence the potential for
soil erosion and compaction and other possible construction limitations or management concerns.
Water resources within the project area present important management limitations due to the need to
regulate water movement and the increased potential for water quality degradation. Excessive soil
disturbance resulting from construction activities can potentially alter both the flow and quality of
water resources, limiting downstream uses. In addition, soil characteristics and the availability of water
directly influence the composition and distribution of flora and fauna in biotic communities, thus
affecting the characteristics of these resources.
2.1 Regional Characteristics
Duplin County lies within the coastal plain of southeastern North Carolina. The northwestern part of
the county is in the middle coastal plain and the southeastern part is in the lower coastal plain.
Dominant soils are primarily sandy loams and loamy sands. Average elevation ranges from 6.1 m
(20.Oft) above mean sea level (msl) at the mouth of the Cape Fear River to 50.9 m (167.0 ft) msl at
Bowden. Project elevations average 16.0 m (52.0 ft) msl. The Northeast Cape Fear River and its
tributaries drain nearly the entire county. (USDA 1905)
2.2 Soils
There is one soil type mapped in the Soil Survey of Duplin County, North Carolina as occurring in the
project area. Swamp (Sd). This soil is a very poorly drained soil that is usually stratified due to the
recent deposits of alluvial parent material, and therefore typically lacks a uniform layer sequence. The
seasonal high water table is high. This soil is subject to frequent flooding and is covered by water most
of the year. The main limitations of this soil are wetness and flooding. The Capability Unit is VIIw-1.
(USDA 1905)
2.3 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning surface water resources likely to be impacted by the
proposed project. Water resource assessments include the physical characteristics, best usage
standards, and water quality aspects of the water resources, along with their relationship to major
regional drainage systems. Probable impacts to surface water resources and minimization methods are
also discussed.
Potential sediment loads and toxin concentrations of these waters from both point sources and non-
point sources are evaluated. Water quality assessments are made based on published resource
information and existing general watershed characteristics. These data provide insight into the value of
NCDOT NRTR - Replacement of Bridge No. I I on NC 241 over Limestone Creek December 1999
Langley and McDonald, Inc. Project No. 1960024-207.00 Page 3
'1
water resources within the project area to meet human needs and to provide habitat for aquatic
organisms. No registered point source dischargers are located in or directly upstream from the project
study area.
23.1 Best Usage Classification
Water resources within the study area are located in the Cape Fear River Basin. There is one water
resource in the project study area, Limestone Creek, a perennial stream, at the location of the proposed
project.
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) that
reflects water quality conditions and potential resource usage. Unnamed tributaries receive the same
classification as the streams to which they flow. The classification for Limestone Creek (DEM Index
No. 18-74-23, 7/1/73) is C - Sw (NCDWQ 1999). Class C refers to waters suitable for aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. Sw refers to swamp
waters.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-1 or WS-II) or
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project study area
(NCDWQ 1999).
2.3.2 Physical Characteristics of Surface waters
At NC Highway 241, Limestone Creek is approximately 18.3 m (60.0 ft) wide and ranges from 0.6 to
1.2 m (2.0 to 4.0 ft) deep. These numbers may vary due to the fact that this survey was conducted
under conditions of abnormally high precipitation. The substrate in the study area is a sandy loam.
The riparian community consists of species such as black willow (Salix nigra), royal fern (Osmunda
regalis), tearthumb (Polygonum sagitatum), red maple (Ater rubrum), green ash (Fraxinus
)7ennsylanica), Virginia chain fern (Woodwardia virginica), water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica), bald
cypress (Taxodium distichum), overcup oak (Quercus lyrata) and rush (Juncus sp.).
2.3.3 Water Quality
There are no registered point source dischargers located in or directly upstream from the project study
area (NCDWQ 1999).
The Basinwide Monitoring Program of the Benthic Macro invertebrate Ambient Network managed by
the DWQ, is part of an ongoing ambient water quality-monitoring program that addresses long-term
trends in water quality. The program monitors ambient water quality by sampling at fixed sites for
selected Benthic macro invertebrates organisms which are sensitive to water quality conditions.
Samples are evaluated on the number of taxa present of intolerant groups (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera,
Trichoptera (EPT)) and a taxa richness value (EPT S) is calculated. A biotic index value is also
calculated for the sample that summarizes tolerance data for all species in each collection. The two
rankings are given equal weight in final site classification. The biotic index and taxa richness values
NCDOT NRTR - Replacement of Bridge No. I I on NC 241 over Limestone Creek December 1999
Langley and McDonald, Inc. Project No. 1960024-207.00 Page 4

primarily reflect the effects of chemical pollution and are a poor measure of the effects of'such physical
pollutants as sediment. There are two benthic monitoring stations on Limestone Creek:
• Limestone Creek at NC 24 (Index No. 18-74-23, Date 4/86) is located within 1.6 km (1.0
mi) downstream of the project area - poor
• Limestone Creek at SR 1702 (Index No. 18-74-23, Date 8/93) is located within 1.6 km (1.0
mi) downstream of the project area - excellent
2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Impacts to water resources in the project area are likely to result from activities associated with project
construction, including clearing and grubbing on stream banks, riparian canopy removal, in-stream
construction, fertilizers and pesticides used in revegetation, and pavement installation. The following
impacts to surface water resources are likely to result from the above-mentioned construction activities:
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and increased erosion in the
project area,
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and vegetation
removal,
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and ground
water flow from construction,
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas,
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway runoff,
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from construction
equipment and other vehicles, and
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and groundwater
drainage patterns.
In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project area, Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters (NCDOT 1997) will be strictly enforced during the
construction phase of the project. Limiting in-stream activities and revegetating stream banks
immediately following the completion of grading can further reduce impacts.
There is potential for components of the bridge to be dropped into "waters of the United States" during
construction. The resulting temporary fill associated with the bridge removal is approximately 61.2
cubic meters (80 cubic yards). NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal (BMP-BDR 1999) must be applied for the removal of these bridges.
NCDOT NRTR - Replacement of Bridge No. II on NC 241 over Limestone Creek December 1999
Langley and McDonald, Inc. Project No. 1960024-207.00 Page 5

3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include terrestrial and aquatic communities. This section describes the biotic
communities encountered in the project area, as well as the relationships between fauna and flora
within these communities. The composition and distribution of biotic communities throughout the
project area are reflective of topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land uses. Descriptions
of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications. These
classifications follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible. Representative animal species that
are likely to occur in these habitats (based on published range distributions) are also cited.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for each animal and plant
species described. Subsequent references to the same organism refer to the common name only. Fauna
observed during the site visit are denoted in the text with an asterisk (*).
3.1 Biotic Communities
Biotic communities include terrestrial and aquatic elements. Much of the flora and fauna described
from biotic communities utilize resources from different communities, making boundaries between
contiguous communities difficult to define. There are two communities located in the project area.
These communities are discussed below.
3.1.1 Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
A Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp community is located on the east and west sides of the existing
bridge and will be impacted on the northwest and southwest side by the on-site detour. It is bordered
by the roadside and riparian communities (the latter described in Section 2.3.2 above). The canopy is
dominated by loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), bald cypress
(Taxodium distichum), and oaks such as swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), overcup oak
(Quercus lyrata), willow oak (Quercus phellos) and laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia). The understory is
composed of red maple (Acer rubrum), ironwood (Carpinus carolinana), American elm (Ulmu.s
americana), green ash (Fraxinus penn.rylvanica), and sweet gum. The shrub and ground layers include
poison ivy (Rhus radicans), rattan vine (Berchemia scandens), blackberry (Rubus sp), giant cane
(Arundinaria gigantea), Asiatic dayflower (Commelina communis), vetch (vicia sp.), red bay (Persea
borbonia), greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), and trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans).
3.1.2 Disturbed Roadside
A disturbed roadside community is located on both sides of NC 241 and will be impacted by both the
bridge replacement and the on-site detour. Due to mowing and the use of herbicides this community is
kept in a constant state of early succession. The dominant species in this community are fescue
(Festuca sp.), chickweed (Stellaria media) boneset (Eupatorium sp. ), morning glory Qpomoea sp. ),
NCDOT'NRTR - Replacement of Bridge No. I I on NC 241 over Limestone Creek December 1999
Langley and McDonald, Inc. Project No. 1960024-207.00 Page 6
¦
American elm, goldenrod (Solidago sp.), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia), and buttercup (Ranunculus sp).
3.1.3 Aquatic Community
This community consists of the waters of Limestone Creek. Possible aquatic insects found in this
community include the water strider (Gerris spp.), crane fly (Tipula sp.), dragon flies (Odanata spp.),
and mosquitoes*(Diptera sp.).
3.1.4 Wildlife
Maintained/disturbed communities adjacent to forested tracts provide rich ecotones for foraging, while
the forests provide forage and cover. Common mammals and birds associated with ecotones and
swamps are the least shrew (Crypototis parva), southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis),
hispid cottonrat (Sigmodon hispidus), and eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus foridanus).
The Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp provides habitat for an assortment of birds and mammals.
Birds often associated with swamp communities include red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus),
white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis), Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus) and
mourning dove (Zenaida macroura).
Mammals that may frequent the swamp community include . white-footed mouse (Peromyscus
leucopus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and Virginia oppossum (Didelphis virginiana). In addition, white-
tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) may also forage in or near
this community. Amphibians and reptiles are likely to be locally abundant in the riparian edge. Spring
peepers (Hyla crucifer) and northern cricket frogs (Acris crepitans) breed in semi-permanent pools
during the spring. Rat snakes (Elaphe obsoleta), worm snakes (Carphophis amoenus), ring-necked
snakes (Diadophi.s punctatus), queen snakes (Regina septemvittata) and the eastern box turtle
(Terrapene carolina carolina) may be found here as well.
3.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the proposed project will have various impacts on the biotic resources described above.
Any construction related activities in or near these resources have the potential to impact biological
functions. This section quantifies and qualifies potential impacts to the natural communities within the
project area in terms of the area impacted and the organisms affected. Temporary and permanent
impacts are considered here as well, along with recommendations to minimize or eliminate impacts.
3.2.1 Terrestrial Impacts
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project construction due to the clearing and paving
of portions of the project area and thus the loss of community area. Table 1 summarizes potential
losses to these communities resulting from project construction. Calculated impacts to terrestrial
NCDOT NRTR - Replacement of Bridge No. I I on NC 241 over Limestone Creek December 19YY
Langley and McDonald, Inc. Project No. 1960024-207.00 Page 7
I
communities reflect the relative abundance of each community present in the study area. Estimated
impacts are derived based on the project lengths described in Section 1.1 and the entire proposed
right-of-way width of 18.3 m (60.0 ft) for the bridge replacement and the on-site detour. However,
project construction often does not require the entire right-of-way; therefore, actual impacts may be
considerably less.
Table 1. Estimated area impacts to terrestrial communities.
Alternative I
Community Bridge Replacement* On-site. Detour**
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp*** 0.09 ha (0.22 ac) 0.32 ha (0.80 ac)
Disturbed Roadside 0.03 ha (0.07 ac) 0.09 ha (0.22 ac)
Total Impacts 0.12 ha (0.29 ac) 0.41 ha (1.02 ac)
*Permanent Impacts **Temporary Impacts ***Impacted Portions are Jurisdictional Wetlands
3.2.2 Aquatic Impacts
Impacts to the aquatic community of Limestone Creek will result from the physical disturbance of
aquatic habitats (i.e. substrate and water quality) associated with the replacement of Bridge No. 11.
Disturbance of aquatic habitats has a detrimental effect on aquatic community composition by reducing
species diversity and the overall quality of aquatic habitats. Physical alterations to aquatic habitats can
result in the following impacts to aquatic communities.
• Inhibition of plant growth,
• Algal blooms resulting from increased nutrient concentrations, and
• Loss of benthic macroinvertebrates through scouring resulting from an increased sediment load.
Impacts to aquatic communities can be minimized by strict adherence to BMPs.
NCDOT NRTR - Replacement of Bridge No. I I on NC 241 over Limestone Creek December 1999
Langley and McDonald, Inc. Project No. !960024-207.00 Page 8
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides inventories and impact analyses pertinent to two significant regulatory issues:
"waters of the United States" and rare and protected species. These issues retain particular significance
because of federal and state mandates that regulate their protection. This section deals specifically with
the impact analyses required to satisfy federal and state regulatory programs prior to project
construction.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "waters of the United States," as defined
in 33 CFR Part 328.3. Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface waters or
wetlands falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Surface waters include all standing or flowing waters that have
commercial or recreational value to the public. Wetlands are identified based on the presence of hydric
soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and saturated or flooded conditions during all or part of the growing
season (USACE 1987).
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation
and hydrology. Wetlands in the project area are located in the Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp.
Soils in this area were determined to be 2.5 Y 3/1 in the upper six with and 10 YR 3/6 redoximorphic
features. Below seven inches, the pedon was sandy with a matrix color of 10 YR 4/1. Vegetation is
described in Section 3.1.1 above.
As shown in Table 1 (page 8), permanent wetland impacts for the replacement of the bridge are
approximately 0.09 ha (0.22 ac); temporary wetland impacts for the on-site detour are approximately
0.32 ha (0.80 ac). Physical aspects of surface waters are described in Section 2.3.1. Limestone Creek
flows into the Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp system on the west side of Bridge 11 and appears to
maintain its banks as it meanders.
4.1.2 Permits
As described above, impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the proposed project.
As a result, construction activities will require permits and certifications from various regulatory
agencies charged with protecting the water quality of public water resources
Nationwide Permit 23 (33 CFR 330.5(a) (23)) is likely to be applicable for all impacts to "waters of the
United States" resulting from the proposed project. This permit authorizes activities undertaken,
assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole or part by another federal agency or
department where that agency or department has determined that pursuant to the Council on
NCDOT NRTR - Replacement of Bridge No. I I on NC 241 over Limestone Creek December 1999
Langley and McDonald, Inc. Project No. 1960024-207.00 Page 9

Environmental Quality regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act
• the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental documentation
because it is included within a category of actions which neither individually nor cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human environment, and
• that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ prior to the issuance of
the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water
certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to "waters of
the United States." Section 401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the
duration of the construction or other land manipulation. The issuance of a 401 permit from the DWQ is
a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit.
The NCDOT built Bridge No. 11 in 1950. This bridge carries NC 241 over Limestone Creek in Duplin
County. The bridge has an asphalt overlay surface on a reinforced concrete floor on steel I-beams. The
bridge has reinforced cap and pile bents and end bents. The bridge is 36.3 m (119.0 ft) long and 10.4 m
(34.0 ft) wide. There is the potential for parts of all eight spans of the bridge deck to be dropped into
the water at the project site during removal of this bridge. The resulting temporary fill into waters of the
US will amount to no more than 80 cubic yards of material. All temporary fill material will be removed
from the creek as soon as possible as part of the bridge removal process and will therefore not require a
permit.
4.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation
The Army Corps of Engineers 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 examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to "waters of the
United States." According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE, in determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset
unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts
and practicable in terms of cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
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
NCDOT NRTR - Replacement of Bridge No. 11 on NC 241 over Limestone Creek December 1999
Langley and McDonald, Inc. Project No. 1960024-207.00 Page 10
F
project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the
footprint of the proposed project through the reduction to median widths, right-of-way widths, fill
slopes, and/or road shoulder widths.
Compensatory mitigation in not normally considered until anticipated impacts to "waters of the United
States" have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. It is recognized that "no
net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and every permit action.
Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts 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," specifically
wetlands. Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site
whenever possible.
Compensatory mitigation is required for those projects authorized under Nationwide Permits that result
in the fill or alteration of 0.13ha (0.33 ac) or more of wetlands and/or 45.7 m (150.0 linear ft) or more
of perennial streams.
This project avoids and minimizes to the maximum extent practicable by replacing the existing two-
lane bridge and approaches as mentioned in alternative one (Table 1). Mitigation for this bridge
replacement will not likely be needed. Written approval of a final mitigation plan is required from the
DWQ prior to the issuance of a 401 Certification. Final permit/mitigation decisions rest with the COE.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been or are, in the process of decline due to natural forces or
their inability to coexist with human development. Federal law (under the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action likely to adversely affect a
species classified as federally protected be subject to review by the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS). Other species may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of 15 September 1999, the FWS lists
two federally protected species for Duplin County (Table 2). A brief description of the characteristics
and habitat requirements for these species along with a conclusion regarding potential project impacts
follows. The project area was surveyed for the presence federally protected species and their habitats
on October 13, 1999 by Mary-Margaret McKinney and Wendee Smith. No federally protected species
were determined to be present.
NCDOT NRTR - Replacement of Bridge No. I I on NC 241 over Limestone Creek December 1999
Langley and McDonald, Inc. Project No. 1960024-207.00 Page I I

Table 2. Federal and state protection statuses for federally listed species in Duplin County.
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status NC Status
American alligator
Red-cockaded woodpecker Alligator mississippiensis
Picoides borealis T (S/A)
Endangered Threatened
Endangered
• T (S/A) Threatened due to Similarity ot'Appearance. The American alligator is threatened clue to sirmiarity or appearance
with other rare crocodilians and is listed for trade purposes only. The species is no longer biologically Endangered or
Threatened federally and is not subject to Section 7 consultation.
• "Endangered" denotes a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
• Historic record- the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
Alligator mississippiensis (American alligator) T (S/A)
Animal Order: Lorcata
Federally Listed: May 2, 1997
Alligator mississippiensis range from 1.8 to 5.8 m (6.0 to 19.0 ft.) in length. This reptile has a broad
snout, a short neck, a heavy body, and a laterally compressed tail. Adults are blackish or dark gray, but
faint yellowish crossbands are sometimes evident. The young are black with conspicuous yellow
crossbands. This species is similar to the spectacled caiman but has a small, curved bony ridge in front
of the eyes.
The American alligator inhabits fresh water swamps, marshes, abandoned rice fields, ponds, lakes, and
backwaters of large rivers. Although its range once extended north in the coastal plain to the Dismal
Swamp, the American alligator is now rarely observed in the area north of the Albemarle Sound and in
much of the upper coastal plain.
In June, the female builds a large mound of leaves, mud, and debris about 60.0 cm (23.6 in) high, 120.0
to 200.0 cm (47.2 to 78.7 in) wide, and usually located in a shaded area a few meters from the water.
She deposits about 30 eggs in a cavity atop the mound, remains nearby, and challenges all intruders,
frequently including man. Hatchlings about 21.0 cm 8.3 in) long emerge in late summer or early fall.
(Martof et al. 1980)
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Environmental specialists Mary Margaret McKinney and Wendee Smith surveyed this site on October
13, 1999 for the American alligator, however none were observed. Habitat for the alligator is present in
the project area. The NCNHP database contains no records of existing populations of American
alligator in the project area. Therefore, no impacts to American alligator are anticipated from project
construction.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) E
NCDOT NRTR - Replacement of Bridge No. 11 on NC 241 over Limestone Creek
Langley and McDonald, Inc. Project No. 1960024-207.00
December 1999
Page 12
r
Animal Family: Picidae
Federally Listed: October 13, 1997
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) once occurred from New Jersey to southern Florida and west to
eastern Texas. It occurred inland in Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri. The
RCW is now found only in coastal states of its historic range and inland in southeastern Oklahoma and
southern Arkansas. In North Carolina moderate populations occur in the sandhills and southern coastal
plain. The few populations found in the Piedmont and northern coastal plain are believed to be relics of
former populations.
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is entirely black and white except for
small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The back of the RCW is black and white with
horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The
RCW has a large white cheek patch surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf pine (Pinus palustris),
for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least 50% pine, lack a thick
understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds
nest exclusively in trees that are >60 years old and are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of
age. The foraging range of the RCW is up to 200 hectares (500 acres). This acreage must be
contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that are infected with the
fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies from 3.6-30.3 m (12-100 ft)
above the ground and average 9.1-15.7 m (30-50 ft) high. A large incrustation of running sap that
surrounds the tree can identify them. The large incrustation of sap is believed to be used as a defense
by the RCW against possible predators. A colony of woodpeckers usually consists of one breeding pair
and the offspring from previous years. The RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June and hatch 38
days later. Clutch size ranges in number from 3-5 eggs. All members of the colony share in raising the
young. Red-cockaded woodpeckers feed mainly on insects but may feed on seasonal wild fruits.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Environmental specialists Mary Margaret McKinney and Wendee Smith surveyed this site on October
13, 1999. No habitat was found for either nesting or foraging of the RCW and no birds or cavities were
observed. There were too few pines onsite and ones that existed were not old enough to support the
RCW. The NCNHP database contains no records of RCW in the project area. No impacts to this
species are anticipated due to construction of the proposed project.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are four federal Species of Concern listed by the FWS for Duplin County. Federal species of
concern are not afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to
any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or
NCDOT NRTR - Replacement of Bridge No. I I on NC 241 over Limestone Creek December 1999
Langley and McDonald, inc. Project No. 1960024-207.00 Page 13
.I
Endangered. However, the status of these species is subject to change, and so should be included for
consideration. Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are defined as a species that is under consideration
for listing but for which there is insufficient information to support listing. In addition, organisms,
which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) in the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program Biological Conservation Database, are afforded state protection under the
N.C. State Endangered Species Act and the N.C. Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
A review of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats shows no occurrence of FSC species
within 1 mi (1.6 km) the project study area. Table 3 lists federal Species of Concern, the state status of
these species (if afforded state protection), and the potential for suitable habitat in the project area for
each species. This species list is provided for information purposes as the protection status of these
species may be upgraded in the future.
Table 3. State protection statuses for federal Species of Concern listed in Duplin County.
Scientific Name Common Name - , ..NC Status Habitat
Heterodon simus Southern hognose snake --/PSC * NO
Procambarus plumimanus Croatan crayfish -- NO
Dionaea muscipula Venus flytrap C-SC NO
Oxypoli.s ternata Savanna cowbane -- YES
• "SC"--A Special Concern species is one that 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.
• "C"--A Candidate 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 also
either rare throughout its range or disjunct in North Carolina from a main range in a different part of the country or the
world.
• "P-"--denotes a species that has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern, but
has not yet completed the listing process.
• *-- Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
NCDOT NRTR - Replacement of Bridge No. 1I on NC 211 over Limestone Creek December 1999
Langley and McDonald, Inc. Project No. 1960021-207.00 Page 1 4
E,
5.0 REFERENCES
Cowardin, Lewis M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classifications of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. USFWS. GPO.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison 111. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the
Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
NC Department of Parks and Recreation. September 1999. Natural Heritage Program Biological
Conservation Database. NCDEHNR, Raleigh, NC.
NC Department of Transportation. 1997. Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface
Waters. NCDOT, Raleigh, NC.
NC Department of Transportation. 1999. Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal (BMP-BDP). NCDOT, Raleigh, NC.
NC Division of Environmental Management. 1995. Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in
North Carolina. NCDEHNR, Raleigh, NC.
NC Division of Water Quality. 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality in North Carolina
Streams: Benthic Macro invertebrate Data Base and Long Term Changes in Water Quality,
1983-1990. NCDEHNR. Raleigh, N.C.
NC Division of Water Quality. September 1998. Classifications and Water Quality Standards
Assigned to the Waters of the Cape Fear River Basin. NCDEHNR. Downloaded from
http://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/strmclass/sclasses.html.
NC Division of Water Quality. 1996. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan.
NCDEHNR. Raleigh, N.C.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina, The University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas, The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina.
Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, NC Division of Parks and Recreation,
Raleigh, N.C.
NCDOT NRTR - Replacement of Bridge No. I 1 on NC 241 over Limestone Creek
Langley and McDonald, Inc. Project No. 1960024-207.00
December 1999
Page 15
E
US Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical report Y-87-1, U.S.
USACE, Vicksburg, MS.
US Department of Agriculture. 1905. Soil Survey of Duplin County, North Carolina. USDA, Soil
Conservation Service, GPO.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. September 15, 1999. Threatened and Endangered Species in North
Carolina. USFWS. Downloaded from http://web.ral.r4.fws.gov/es/countyfr.html.
US Geological Survey. 1981. Topographic Map of Beulaville, NC. USGS, Reston, Virginia. Scale
1:24,000.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia and
Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
NCDOT NRTR - Replacement of Bridge No. 11 on NC 141 over Limestone Creek December 1999
Langley and McDonald, Inc. Project No. 1960024-207.00 Page 16