1993078 Ver 1_Complete File_19980924

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources mYA
Division of Environmental Management James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
March 17, 1995
Mr. Wilbert V. Paynes
Acting Chief, Planning Division
Department of the Army
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, N.C. 28402-1890
Dear Mr. Paynes;
^yj,
F I L E
<<_
Re: Modification of 401 Certification
Proposed Fairfield Bridge replacement
Project # 93788
Hyde County
Pursuant to your letter of 24 February: 1995, Condition # 2 of Certification: number
2953 dated 6 December. 1994 is hereby modified to read:
2. Mitigation for this project shall consist of removal of the existing 2.0
acre northern causeway or NC 94 down to the elevation: of. adjacent
wetlands. If natural revegation after one year is not satisfactory to
DEM, planting will be required.
All other conditions of the Certification are still in effect. If we can,be of further
assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
soward, J P.E.
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engin ers
Corps of Engineers Washington Field Office
Washington DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Domey
Mr. Steve Benton, Division of Coastal Management
Central Files 2953.rev
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
E.
tote of North Carolina
epartment of Environment,
e Ith. and Natural Resources 4 • tqw
Diviion of Environmental Management
? C
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, , Secretary A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
December 6, 1994
Mr. Hugh Heine
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, N.C. 28402-1890
Dear Mr. Heine:
Subject: Certification Pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal
Clean Water Act,
Proposed Fairfield Bridge replacement
Project # 93788
Hyde County
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No. 2953 issued to U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers dated 6 December 1994.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
eston Howard, Jr
Attachments
wgc2953
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Washington Field Office
Washington DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Mr. Steve Benton, Division of Coastal Management
Central Files
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

NORTH CAROLINA
Hyde County
CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401 Public
Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500 to U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers resulting in 2.4 acres of wetland impact in Hyde County pursuant to an application filed on
the 13th day of September of 1993 and 18 October 1994 to replace Fairfield Bridge over AIWW.
The Application provides adequate assurance that the discharge of fill material into the waters
of AIWW in conjunction with the proposed development in Hyde County will not result in a violation
of applicable Water Quality Standards and discharge guidelines. Therefore, the State of North
Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, 307 of PL 92-500 and
PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance with the application and conditions hereinafter set forth.
Condition(s) of Certification:
That the activity be conducted in such a manner as to prevent significant
increase in turbidity-outside the area of construction or construction
related discharge (50 NTUs in streams and rivers not designated as trout
waters by DEM; 25 NTUs in all saltwater classes, and all lakes and
reservoirs; 10 NTUs in trout waters).
2. Mitigation shall be done as described in the 18 October 1994 EIS. Written
DEM approval for the final mitigation plan shall be obtained before
construction begins,DEM shall be copied on all mitigation reports.
Violations of anv condition -herein set forth shall result in revocation of this Certification. This
Certification shall become null and void unless the above conditions are made conditions of the
Federal 404 and/or Coastal Area Management Act Permit. This Certification shall expire upon
expiration of the 404 or CAMA permit.
If this Certification is unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon
written request within thirty (30) days following receipt of this Certification. This request must be in
the form of a written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes and
filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. Unless
such demands are made, this Certification shall be final and binding.
This the 6th day of December, 1994.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
P eston Ho ard, Jr.
J
WQC# 2953
Planning Division
Mr. John Dorney
Environmental Scie
Division of Enviro
North Carolina Dep
Health, and Natu
4401 Reedy Creek R
Raleigh, North Car
Dear Mr. Dorney:
The purpose of
Fairfield Bridge R
As part of the des
documents, we have
value engineering
refinements.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
February 24, 1995
e Branch
ental Management
tment of Environment,
1 Resources
d
ina 27607-6445
his letter is to advise
lacement Project, NC 94,
n process leading to the
ade several refinements
udy. Enclosed is a plan
v }
FF RFc????o
B
%ON?F
A tiT s
•ti c?F,?cFs
you of our progress
Hyde County, North
preparation of the
to the project plan
sheet that depicts

on the
Carolina.
construction
based on the
the concept
Three significant refinements are being pursued. These include:
(1) lengthening the bridge structure to reduce embankment height, footprint,
and encroachment on adjoining drainage canals; (2) using sheetpile cutoff
walls to prevent any embankment material from encroaching into the drainage
canals along the southeast and northwest sides of the project; and
(3) permanently bypassing and abandoning the portion of NC 94 located south
of the existing bridge between the existing bridge and the south end of our
project.
The first two refinements eliminate the need for filling and relocating
canals to stabilize embankments, lower the permanent embankment height, lessen
settlement amount and times, reduce environmental disturbances and impacts,
reduce embankment fill quantities, reduce material disposal quantities,
simplify construction, and reduce right-of-way and easement requirements. The
third refinement eliminates the need to construct permanent tie-ins to the now
bypassed portion of NC 94, facilitating the use of only temporary detours to
bypass traffic. These will be removed at the completion of construction. The
detours will be easier to construct with fewer stability problems because of
their temporary nature and will reduce the amount of permanent right-of-way
and construction easements required.
As indicated in the Fairfield Bridge Replacement Draft and Final
Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), removal of the existing 2.0-acre NC 94
northern causeway is an integral component of the proposed project. If we are
able to pursue the above-mentioned refinements (2 and 3), only 0.3 acre of
wetlands (impacted by the construction of the 37 bridge bents) would be
permanently impacted by the bridge replacement. The removal of the 2.0-acre
NC 94 northern causeway, with subsequent natural revegetation, will more than
offset the loss of 0.3 acre of filled wetlands.

-2-
Since there is no net loss of wetlands, as a result of these proposed
project refinements, no separable mitigation is required. Therefore, we will
no longer need to purchase either 5.5 or 10.0 acres of land for mitigation
(see Section 7.4 of the Fairfield Bridge Replacement Final EIS).
In addition to these refinements, the location of the north borrow site
was changed due to owner objections. A new location on prior converted
croplands within the boundaries of the Kilkenney Farms has been identified.
Coordination with the owner and regulatory officials was done prior to
completing subsurface investigations. This new borrow site consists of
approximately 46.7 acres, including a 50-foot buffer area around the
perimeter; see the enclosed Plate P-6 for the.location. By letter dated
June 9, 1994 (copy enclosed), representatives,from the Corps of Engineers'
Washington Regulatory Field Office concurred with the Soil Conservation
Service designation that Farm No. 258, Tract No. T-1262, Fields 467 through
481 (the new north borrow site location), is a prior converted cropland. ' A
prior converted cropland is not regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act and no permits from the Corps of Engineers are required for any activity
on such lands. The new borrow site does not impact any wetlands subject to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The new site has approximately the same'
surface area, material, quality, and similar environmental impacts as the
former area but is far more acceptable to the landowner.
Work is continuing on finalizing the right-of-way, and highway plans
containing the above proposed refinements and real estate acquisition is
scheduled to begin in October 1995. If you have any questions or comments on
the project, please contact Mr. Hugh Heine at [phone]. As always, we
appreciate the opportunity to work closely with you on this project.
Sincerely,
Wilbert V. Paynes
Acting Chief, Planning Division
Enclosures
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
June 9, 1994
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
ACTION ID: 199402927
John Hancock Life Insurance Co.
Post Office Box 128
Engelhard, North Carolina 27824
Dear Sirs:
This letter confirms the May 25, 1994, onsite meeting between Messrs.
Wallace Hudson, Bill Brooks, and Hugh Heine of the Wilmington District Corps
of Engineers, Environmental Resources Branch, and Mr. Mickey Sugg of my staff
on your property located in the Kilkenny Farm, on the west side of N.C.
Highway 94, approximately 2.5 miles north of S.R. 1322, adjacent to Pocosin
Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, near Kilkenny, Tyrrell County, North Carolina.
The purpose of the meeting was to inspect the site for waters and wetlands
subject to Department of the Army permitting authority and to determine
eligibility of the site for the proposed borrow/disposal area for the
Fairfield Bridge Replacement Project.
Mr_ Sugg has received documentation from Mr. Rufus Croom of the Hyde
County SCS Office, that the existing field portions of your property,
specifically Farm No. 258, Tract No. T-1262, Fields 467 through 481, have been
designated prior converted cropland by that agency. During the meeting, Mr.
Hugh Heine provided a copy of the determination for the site. In accordance
with recent policy guidance from the office, Chief of Engineers, prior
converted cropland is not regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act,
and no permits are required from the Corps for any activity on such areas.
However, if prior converted cropland is abandoned and wetland conditions
return, then the area will be subject to regulation under Section 404. An
area will be considered abandoned if for five consecutive years, there has
been no cropping, management or maintenance activities related to agricultural
production. In this case, positive indicators of all mandatory wetlands
criteria, including hydrophytic vegetation, must be observed.
This determination applies only to the area designated as prior converted
cropland by the SCS, and does not include any wooded or cut-over areas on or
adjacent to the property. Department of the Army authorization may be
required for any discharge of dredged or fill material into any area not
identified as existing prior converted cropland.

If there are at the regaOfficerding please contact ir, Sugg n,
North Carolina 27889-1000, or telephone [phone]ox 1000, Washington,
Sincerely
G, Wayne Wright
Copies Furnished: Chief, Regulatory Branch
Mr. Harry Bailey
Land Quality Section
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 2188
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mrs. Deborah Sawyer
Divis .:-n of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 2188
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Terry Moore
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 2188
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Rufus Croom
District Conservationist
Post Office Box 264
Swan Quarter, North Carolina 27885
/Mr. Hugh Heine
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Environmental Resource Branch
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Division of Environmental
Ecological Assessment
December 1, 1994
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Subject:
John Dorney
Ginny Coleman
Fairfield Bridge Replacement
Management
Group
Hyde Co.
After reviewing the FEIS it appears that the Corps has addressed all of the concerns raised
by Eric in his October 25, 1993 response to the DEIS. Wetland impacts will be mitigated
2:1. i.e. 1. If the existing roadbed can be removed (pending purchase of all adjacent
properties or pending COE paying damages), then 2.0 acres will be mitigated for on site
and they will purchase 5.5 acres of prior-converted wetlands at Kilkenny and restore. or 2.
they will purchase 10.0 acres of off-site prior converted wetlands (at Kilkenny). This land,
following restoration, will be transferred to NCDOT and ultimately to the USFWS Pocosin
Lakes Refuge. Mitigation details follow Eric's recommendations (see pg.42 of FEIS). I
recommend issuing the 401.

4L
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO October 18, 1994
Planning Division 00
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Planning
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Dear Mr. Dorney:
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, is
providing the enclosed Record of Decision for the Fairfield Bridge
Replacement. By letter dated September 13, 1993, we transmitted
the application for a Water Quality Certification, pursuant to
Section 401 of P.L. 95-217, to place fill material in waters and
wetlands on manmade canals off the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
(AIWW), as described in the enclosed Final Environmental Impact
The proposed action consists of the construction of a new
high-level, fixed-span, two-lane bridge that will provide a
U.S. Coast Guard required minimum horizontal navigation clearance
of 90 feet and a minimum vertical clearance of 65 feet over the
AIWW. Work is scheduled to begin in January 1997 and will require
approximately 3 years to complete. The District is planning to
increase the amount of scrub shrub wetlands mitigated for by the
proposed Fairfield Bridge replacement. By letter dated May 27,
1994, we informed you that instead of mitigating for 2.1 acres of
wetlands filled, we will be mitigating for 2.4 acres of wetlands
filled. The 0.3-acre difference accounts for the wetlands
permanently impacted by the construction of the 37 bridge bents.
Our application, dated September 13, 1993, indicated that the
District planned to fill about 2.1 to 4.1 acres of wetlands...This
minor revision was thoroughly discussed in the Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS), which you received in the latter part
of June 1994. As indicated in the FEIS, the District plans to
mitigate the 2.4 acres of wetlands filled by the proposed action
by creating wetlands on a 5.5-acre prior converted farm field
(see Section 7.0 in the FEIS).

-2-
Please supply this office with the required 401 Water Quality
Certification as soon as possible. Questions or comments should
be addressed to Mr. Hugh Heine at telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
Wilbert V. Paynes"
Acting Chief, Planning Division
Enclosures
Copy Furnished (with enclosures):
Mr. Jim Mulligan, Regional Supervisor
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington, North Carolina 27889

RECORD OF DECISION
FAIRFIELD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
As Division Engineer, South Atlantic Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
it is my decision, based on review of the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) for the Fairfield Bridge Replacement, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
Bridge, Hyde County, North Carolina, dated June 1994, that the project should
proceed as outlined. I find the recommended action to be based on a thorough
analysis of the available alternatives in relation to engineering, economic,
environmental, and social criteria.
The Fairfield Bridge is located in Hyde County, North Carolina, on North
Carolina Highway 94. It crosses the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway at
milepost 113.8, approximately 3.7 miles north of Fairfield, North Carolina.
The recommended plan was selected after consideration of several alternatives
and is comprised of the following elements.
a. Replacement of\the existing obsolete swing-span bridge with a
high-level, fixed-span bridge that has an approximate length of 3,714 feet,
a minimum vertical navigation clearance of 65 feet, and a minimum horizontal
navigation clearance of 90 feet.
b. Construction of approximately 2,594 feet of approach roadway.
c. Use of a 45-acre northern and a 35-acre southern borrow/disposal area.
d. Purchase and modification of 5.5 acres of land for mitigation.
No Action. A no action alternative for this project is not considered a
viable alternative. The already high maintenance costs and unsafe operating
conditions of the existing bridge would continue to worsen as the bridge
structure ages and traffic increases. Traffic delays would worsen and create
congestion problems within the community. None of the needs and objectives of
the study area would be met by this alternative.
Plans Considered in Detail. Three alignment plans were considered in detail
and fully discussed in the FEIS. Each alignment plan included a fixed-span
bridge with a 65-foot-vertical navigation clearance.
The conclusions from the studies are that Alignment 1 (western alignment)
is the preferred alignment; the northern and southern sites are the preferred
borrow/disposal areas. Alignment 1 meets the planning criteria more
effectively than the other alignments and appears to be the plan generally
preferred by the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the affected
public. The recommended plan is also the environmentally preferred plan. All
practicable means to avoid, minimize, and compensate for adverse environmental
effects from the selected alignment and borrow/disposal areas have been adopted
and will be implemented. Specific recommendations to mitigate significant
unavoidable impacts are contained in the FEIS.
The 'Corps considered the requirements of all appropriate Federal, State, and
local policies, laws, executive orders, and regulations, and the recommended
plan is in full compliance with all these requirements. The following items
are required as conditions of compliance.
t..
a. The final mitigation plan must be acceptable to the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management, the North Carolina Division of Coastal
Management, and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Each of
these agencies will be provided the opportunity to review and comment on the
detailed mitigation plan.
b. Construction of a temporary detour which will require removal of the
marsh substrate on the south side of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, and
the removal of the northern causeway is proposed. In restoring these two areas
to their original elevation and contour, suitable material comparable to what
was removed must be used for fill.
c. The rare plant species Leptochioa fascicularis var. maritima
(long-awned spangletop) has recently been located in the project area. Upon
completion of the Corps' botanical survey of the site and prior to the initia-
tion of construction, the Corps will contact the North Carolina Division of
Parks and Recreation and the North Carolina Conservation Program to coordinate
the removal and salvage of any plants found within the right-of-way.
d. A 401 Water Quality Certification for the project is obtained from the
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management.
e. Three separate erosion and sedimentation control plans must be filed
with the North Carolina Division of Land Resources at least 30 days prior to
beginning land disturbing activities and must be approved by the Division prior
to the commencement of any land disturbing activity. One plan must be filed
for the bridge construction, ramp work, and road alignment, and one plan each
must be filed for the two proposed borrow and waste areas located on the north
and south sides of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. Temporary and permanent
erosion and sedimentation control measures must be utilized throughout the
project to prevent offsite contamination.
f. The Corps will develop plans in cooperation with the Washington
Regional Office of-the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, to help prevent
mosquito breeding at the construction borrow and disposal sites.
g. Photodocumentation to Historic American Engineering Record Standards
of the Fairfield swing-span bridge shall be undertaken (Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966), prior to construction.
In summary, I find that the recommended project is the most feasible solution
and represents the course of action which, on balance, best serves the overall
public interest. A
3-October 1994
DATE
RAL H V. LOCURCIO
Bri adier General, U. S. Army
Div ion Engineer
2
.? r

RECORD OF DECISION
FAIRFIELD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
As Division Engineer, South Atlantic Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
it is my decision, based on review of the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) for the Fairfield Bridge Replacement, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
Bridge, Hyde County, North Carolina, dated June 1994, that the project should
proceed as outlined. I find the recommended action to be based on a thorough
analysis of the available alternatives in relation to engineering, economic,
environmental, and social criteria.
The Fairfield Bridge is located in Hyde County, North Carolina, on North
Carolina Highway 94. It crosses the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway at
milepost 113.8, approximately 3.7 miles north of Fairfield, North Carolina.
The recommended plan was selected after consideration of several alternatives
and is comprised of the following elements.
a. Replacement of`the existing obsolete swing-span bridge with a
high-level, fixed-span bridge that has an approximate length of 3,714 feet,
a minimum vertical navigation clearance of 65 feet, and a minimum horizontal
navigation clearance of 90 feet.
b. Construction of approximately 2,594 feet of approach roadway.
c. Use of a 45-acre northern and a 35-acre southern borrow/disposal area.
d. Purchase and modification of 5.5 acres of land for mitigation.
No Action. A no action alternative for this project is not considered a
viable alternative. The already high maintenance costs and unsafe operating
conditions of the existing bridge would continue to worsen as the bridge
structure ages and traffic increases. Traffic delays would worsen and create
congestion problems within the community. None of the needs and objectives of
the study area would be met by this alternative.
Plans Considered in Detail. Three alignment plans were considered in detail
and fully discussed in the FEIS. Each alignment plan included a fixed-span
bridge with a 65-foot-vertical navigation clearance.
The conclusions from the studies are that Alignment 1 (western alignment)
is the preferred alignment; the northern and southern sites are the preferred
borrow/disposal areas. Alignment 1 meets the planning criteria more
effectively than the other alignments and appears to be the plan generally
preferred by the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the affected
public. The recommended plan is also the environmentally preferred plan. All
practicable means to avoid, minimize, and compensate for adverse environmental
effects from the selected alignment and borrow/disposal areas have been adopted
and will be implemented. Specific recommendations to mitigate significant
unavoidable impacts are contained in the FEIS.
The'Corps considered the requirements of all appropriate Federal, State, and
local policies, laws, executive orders, and regulations, and the recommended
plan is in full compliance with all these requirements. The following items
are required as conditions of compliance.
R
a. The final mitigation plan must be acceptable to the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management, the North Carolina Division of Coastal
Management, and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Each of
these agencies will be provided the opportunity to review and comment on the
detailed mitigation plan.
b. Construction of a temporary detour which will require removal of the
marsh substrate on the south side of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, and
the removal of the northern causeway is proposed. In restoring these two areas
to their original elevation and contour, suitable material comparable to what
was removed must be used for fill.
c. The rare plant species Leatochloa fascicularis var. maritima
(long-awned spangletop) has recently been located in the project area. Upon
completion of the Corps' botanical survey of the site and prior to the initia-
tion of construction, the Corps will contact the North Carolina Division of
Parks and Recreation and the North Carolina Conservation Program to coordinate
the removal and salvage of any plants found within the right-of-way.
d. A 401 Water Quality Certification for the project is obtained from the
North Carolina Division. of Environmental Management.
e. Three separate erosion and sedimentation control plans must be filed
with the North Carolina Division of Land Resources at least 30 days prior to
beginning land disturbing activities and must be approved by the Division prior
to the commencement of any land disturbing activity. One plan must be filed
for the bridge construction, ramp work, and road alignment, and one plan each
must be filed for the two proposed borrow and waste areas located on the north
and south sides of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. Temporary and permanent
erosion and sedimentation control measures must be utilized throughout the
project to prevent offsite contamination.
f. The Corps will develop plans in cooperation with the Washington
Regional Office of-the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, to help prevent
mosquito breeding at the construction borrow and disposal sites.
g. Photodocumentation to Historic American Engineering Record Standards
of the Fairfield swing-span bridge shall be undertaken (Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966), prior to construction.
In summary, I find that the recommended project is the most feasible solution
and represents the course of action which, on balance, best serves the overall
public interest.
3October 1994 RAL H V. LOCURCIO
DATE Bri adier General, U. S. Army
Div ion Engineer
2
r
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Wilmington District
Fairfield Bridge Replacement
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Bridges
Hyde County, North Carolina
FINAL
Environmental Impact Statement
June 1994

FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Fairfield Bridge Replacement
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Bridge
Hyde County, North Carolina
The responsible lead agency is the U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington.
ABSTRACT: The replacement of the Fairfield Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
(AIWW) Bridge was authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-611)
because of unsafe operating conditions associated with structural
deterioration and narrow roadway, traffic delays, and high operation and
maintenance costs. The bridge crosses the AIWW at mile 113.8 and is located
on N.C. Highway 94, approximately 3.7 miles north of Fairfield, Hyde County,
North Carolina. The proposed replacement bridge will be a high-level, fixed-
span, two-lane bridge that will provide a Coast Guard required minimum
horizontal navigation clearance of 90 feet and a minimum vertical clearance of
65 feet over the AIWW. A combination of highway design, engineering,
economic, environmental, and social criteria was used to develop alternatives
for the bridge and borrow/disposal site locations. Alignment 1 is the
selected plan (proposed action) and lies approximately 215 feet west of the
existing bridge with about 2,594 feet of new roadway (relocated N.C. Highway
94 and connections to the existing N.C. Highway 94) and about 3,714 feet of
bridge (see Plate P-3 in Appendix H). The'best sites for borrow/disposal
areas were determined to be north and south of the AIWW (see Figure 8). The
U.S. Coast Guard has been a cooperating agency in this process.
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was filed with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency on September 24, 1993, and was circulated for
a 45-day public review period ending November 8, 1993. Comments received on
the DEIS have been addressed in this document. Changes between the Draft and
Final EIS are indicated in bold type.
SEND YOUR COMMENTS TO THE DISTRICT For further information concerning this
ENGINEER. statement, please contact:
Mr. Hugh Heine
Environmental Resources Branch
U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402 - 1890
Phone: [phone]
NOTE: To avoid disturbing the continuity of this document, all tables and
figures have been placed in a separate section between the index and the
appendixes.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1 AUTHORITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 PURPOSE AND NEED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3 STUDY PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.0 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1 STUDY AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT - EXISTING CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.1 Land Use/Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.2 Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.3 Wildlife Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.4 Aquatic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.5 Cultural Resources 10
3.2.6 Esthetic and Recreational Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.7 Socio-Economic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2.8 Hazardous/Toxic and Radioactive Waste . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2.9 Flood Plains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2.10 Prime and Unique Farmlands 12
3.2.11 Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3 FUTURE CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3.1 Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3.2 Highway Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3.3 Waterway Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3.4 Bridge Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3.5 Effects of Future Conditions on Resources . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3.5.1 Wildlife Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3.5.2 Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3.5.3 Aquatic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3.5.4 Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3.5.5 Esthetic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3.5.6 Socio-Economic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.4 PROBLEMS, NEEDS, AND OPPORTUNITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.4.1 Bridge Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.4.2 Traffic Increases . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.4.3 Locational Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.0 FORMULATION OF PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.1 PLAN FORMULATION RATIONALE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.1.1 Bridge and Roadwav Alignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.1.1.1 Engineering Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.1.1.2 Economic Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.1.1.3 Environmental Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.1.1.4 Social Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
i
4.1.2 Borrow/Disposal Site Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.0
4.1.2.1 Engineerincr Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.1.2.2 Economic Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.1.2.3 Environmental Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.1.2.4 Social Criteria . . . . . . 18
4.2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.2.1 New Alignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.2.1.1 Alignment 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.2.1.2 Alignment 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.2.1.3 Alignment 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.2.2 Alternatives Dropped from Further Study . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.2.2.1 Existing alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.2.2.2 No-Action Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
ASSESSMENT OF DETAILED PLANS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.1 BRIDGE ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.1.1 Alignment 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.1.1.1 Aquatic Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.1.1.2 Wetlands 21
5.1.1.3 Wildlife Habitat.Catecrorv . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.1.1.4 Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.1.1.5 Esthetics and Recreational Resources . . . . . . . 22
5.1.1.6 Socio-Economic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.1.1.7 Hazardous/Toxic and Radioactive Waste . . . . . . . 23
5.1.2 Alignment 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.1.2.1 Aquatic Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.1.2.2 Wetlands 23
5.1.2.3 Wildlife Habitat Category . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.1.2.4 Cultural Resources . . 24
5.1.2.5 Esthetics and Recreational Resources . . . . . . . 24
5.1.2.6 Socio-Economic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.1.2.7 Hazardous/Toxic and Radioactive Waste . . . . . . . 25
5.1.3 Alignment 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.1.3.1 Aquatic Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.1.3.2 Wetlands . 25
5.1.3.3 Wildlife Habitat Category . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.1.3.4 Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.1.3.5 Esthetics and Recreational Resources . . . . . . . 26
5.1.3.6 Socio-Economic Resources 27
5.1.3.7 Hazardous/Toxic and Radioactive Waste . . . . . . . 27
5.2 BORROW/DISPOSAL SITE ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.2.1 Borrow/Disposal Alternative Dropped from Further Study . . . 28
5.3 COMPARISON OF DETAILED PLANS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
ii
6.0 SELECTED PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.1 RATIONALE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.2 PLAN SELECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.4 CONSTRUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
6.5 PROJECT EFFECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6.5.1 Beneficial Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6.5.2 Adverse Effects . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6.5.2.1 Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6.5.2.2 Historic Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
6.5.2.3 Visual Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
6.5.3 Consistency Determination for N.C. Coastal Manacvement Plan . 34
6.5.4 Flood Plains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
6.5.5 Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
6.5.6 Section 122 Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
6.5.6.1 Air Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
6.5.6.2 Noise Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
6.5.6.3 Water Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
6.5.6.4 Destruction of Man-Made and Natural Resources . . . 37
6.5.6.5 Esthetic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
6.5.6.6 Community Cohesion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
6.5.6.7 Public Facilities and Services . . . . . . . . . . 37
6.5.6.8 Employment Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
6.5.6.9 Tax and Property Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
6.5.6.10 Displacement of People, Businesses, and Farms . . . 37
6.5.6.11 Community and Regional Growth . . . . . . . . . 37
6.5.7 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man's
Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term
Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
6.5.8 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 38
7.0 MITIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
7.1 DISPLACEMENT OF RESIDENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
7.2 LOSS OF WETLANDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
7.2.1 Mitigation Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
7.2.2 Alternative Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
7.2.3 Mitigation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
7.3 LOSS OF EXISTING BRIDGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
7.4 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
8.0 COORDINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
8.1 LIST OF RECIPIENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
8.2 RESPONSE TO U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE COMMENTS . . . . . . . . 48
9.0 LIST OF PREPARERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
iii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO.
1 RELATIONSHIP OF PROJECT TO ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS
2 FAIRFIELD BRIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, ALTERNATIVE BRIDGE ALIGNMENTS
3 ALIGNMENT RATINGS
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO.
1 FAIRFIELD BRIDGE
2 LOCATION MAP
3 WETLANDS
4 HYDE AND TYRRELL COUNTIES SOIL SURVEY MAP
5 ALIGNMENTS
6 WETLAND MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
7 PROJECT AREA
8 WASTE AND BORROW AREAS
9 POTENTIAL MITIGATION SITE
iv
LIST OF APPENDIXES
APPENDIX A - ENDANGERED SPECIES EVALUATION
APPENDIX B - EVALUATION OF WETLANDS
APPENDIX C - MITIGATION
APPENDIX D - CULTURAL RESOURCES
APPENDIX E - EVALUATION OF SECTION 404(b)(1) GUIDELINES - 40 CFR 230
APPENDIX F - USFWS FINAL COORDINATION ACT REPORT
APPENDIX G - BRIDGE OPENINGS
APPENDIX H - PLAN DRAWINGS
APPENDIX I - SCOPING CORRESPONDS-:CE
APPENDIX J - COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
v
1.0 SUMMARY
The selection of an alignment for the replacement of the Fairfield Bridge and
for the location of borrow/disposal sites was based on engineering
feasibility, economic effectiveness, environmental resources, and socio-
economic conditions. The selected alignment is the one that best satisfies
the established criteria and meets the approval of the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and the affected public.
Engineering and design criteria are primarily those established by the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials as
supplemented by the NCDOT. Criteria address design speed, maximum horizontal
curve, maximum allowable grade, design load, and minimum bridge width.
Economic criteria are primarily associated with alignment and bridge
lengths, utility relocation, and construction costs. The key word in the
economic criteria is best value, which produces a better product.
Environmental resource considerations and criteria addressed included
wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, socio-economic resources, and esthetics.
Resource maps were developed for the significant resources and used as an aid
for locating alignments and borrow/disposal sites in "low impact" areas.
Socio-economic criteria addressed residential, commercial, and
agricultural land uses, circulation patterns, and visual resources within the
community. Minimizing community disruption was the major component of these
criteria.
Three alternative alignments and two alternative borrow/disposal sites
were developed to satisfy or partially satisfy the planning criteria. As
expected, there are differences in the degree to which the criteria are
satisfied by each alternative and differences in the effect that each
alternative has on the resources of the study area. These differences were
examined and compared to help select the most desirable alignment and
borrow/disposal sites.
The conclusions from the studies are that Alignment 1 (western alignment)
is the preferred alignment (see Plate P-3 in Appendix H); the northern and
southern sites are the preferred borrow/disposal areas (see Figure 8). The
proposed mitigation site is located east of N.C. Highway 94 in Tyrrell County
(see Figure 9). Alignment 1 meets the planning criteria more effectively than
the other alignments and appears to be the plan generally preferred by the
NCDOT. By letter dated April 23, 1993, NCDOT indicated that the District
should pursue the western alignment.
The Notice of Intent to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) for the proposed Fairfield Bridge Replacement appeared in the Federal
Register on June 9, 1992 (Vol.57, No. 111). A public mailing was sent on June
25, 1992, to gather information and concerns about the proposed project. This
mailing initiated the study and requested information on resources and
interests that should be considered in the planning process. In addition to
the mailing, a meeting was convened on October 27, 1992, between
representatives from the U.S. Army Corps Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), the
NCDOT, and the North Carolina Nature Conservancy. The purpose of this meeting
was to provide copies of the latest bridge alignment alternatives and to
discuss the environmental impacts of the proposed bridge replacement. The
DEIS was circulated for a 45-day public review period beginning on September
24, 1993.
As indicated in Section 7.0, Mitigation, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
will mitigate for all significant impacts to the adjacent wetlands.. The total
amount of wetlands to be significantly impacted by the bridge replacement
(including the 0.3 acre of scrub-shrub wetlands permanently impacted by the
construction of the 37 bridge bents covered by Nationwide Permit No. 15, "U.S.
Coast Guard Approved Bridges") is 4.4 acres. If the District can economically
purchase or pay damages for all adjacent properties, then the existing 2.0-
acre northern N.C. Highway 94 roadbed/causeway can be removed. Therefore, the
net effect would be 2.4 acres (4.4 - 2.0 = 2.4) of wetlands for the proposed
project. On the other hand, if the Corps cannot economically obtain all
adjacent properties, then the existing 2.0-acre northern N.C. Highway 94
roadbed/causeway will not be removed and the District will mitigate the entire
4.4 acres. As indicated in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
text, before the northern roadway/causeway can be removed, the District will
need to either purchase all adjacent properties or pay damages. The Uniform
Relocation Assistance Act (P.L. 91-646), as well as State statute, requires
that the Corps maintain access to privately owned lands adjacent to the
project site where access has been provided in the past unless appropriate
compensation has been made to the property owner.
The proposed project has been reviewed under Section 404(b)(1) of the
Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, and the placement of fill material has
been evaluated under these guidelines (Appendix E). In addition, the proposed
project was found to be in compliance with Executive order 11990, Protection
of Wetlands, and with Executive order 11988, Flood Plain Management, and was
found to be consistent with the approved Coastal Management Program of the
State of North Carolina. Requirements of Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended, and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,
as amended, have been met.
Other agencies and interest groups that have been involved in the study
to date include the USFWS, the NCDOT, the North Carolina Division of Archives
and History, the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management, and the North Carolina Nature
Conservancy. Other agencies and interest groups have been involved through
public mailings.
There are no known unresolved or controversial issues associated with the
project.
TABLE 1 - RELATIONSHIP OF PROJECT TO ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS
Federal Policies Proposed Action
Abandoned Shipwreck Act Full Compliance, see 3.2.5,
of 1987 5.1.1.4, and Appendix D
Clean Air Act, as amended Full Compliance, see 6.5.6.1
and 6.5.7
Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended Full Compliance, see 3.3.1,
5.1, Appendix B and E
Coastal Barrier Resources Act Not Applicable
of 1982
Coastal Zone Management Act Full Compliance, see 6.5.3
of 1972, as amended
Endangered Species Act Full Compliance, see 3.2.11
of 1973, as amended and Appendix A
Estuary Protection Act Full Compliance, see 3.2.4
Federal Water Project Not Applicable
Recreation Act
Fishery Conservation and Management Full Compliance, see 3.2.4
Act of 1976, as amended
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Full Compliance, see 8.2
as amended
Hazardous and Toxic Materials Full Compliance, see 3.2.8
Marine Protection, Research, and Not Applicable
Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended
Marine Mammal Protection Act, Not Applicable
P.L. 92-522
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Full Compliance, see
16 U.S.C. 703, et seq. Appendix F
Migratory Bird Conservation Act, Full Compliance, see
16 U.S.C. 715 Appendix F
National Historic Preservation Full Compliance, see 3.2.5,
Act of 1966, as amended 5.1.1.4, and Appendix D
National Environmental Policy Full Compliance, see 2.0
Act of 1969, as amended
3
TABLE 1 - RELATIONSHIP OF PROJECT TO ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS (Continued)
Federal Policies
River and Harbor and Flood Control
Act of 1970, P.L. 91-611,
Section 122
Submerged Lands Act of 1953,
P.L. 82-31
Water Resources Development Act of
1976, P.L. 94-587,
Section 150
Water Resources Development Act of
1986, P.L. 99-662,
Section 906
Watershed Protection and Flood
Prevention Act
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
Land and Water Conservation
Fund Act
Executive Orders (EO), Memorandums, etc.
EO 11988, Flood Plain Management
EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands
EO 11593, Protection and Enhancement
of the Cultural Environment
State and Local Policies
Coastal Area Management Act
of 1974
Hyde and Tyrrell Counties
Comprehensive Land Use Plans
Proposed Action
Full Compliance, see 6.5.6
Not Applicable, No Beach
Disposal
Not Applicable, No Wetlands
Established From Dredged
Material
Full Compliance, see 7.2
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Full Compliance, see 3.2.9,
and 6.5.4
Full Compliance, see 3.4.3
and 6.5.2.1
Full Compliance, see 3.2.5,
5.1.1.4, and Appendix D
Full Compliance, see 6.5.3
Full Compliance, see 6.5.3
+ Full Compliance is defined as having met all the requirements of the
statute, Executive Order, or other environmental requirement for the
current stage of planning.
4
2.0 INTRODUCTION
This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) has been prepared to present
the study process and the engineering, economic, environmental, and socio-
economic considerations used to select a plan for the replacement of Fairfield
Bridge. It also serves to fulfill the reporting requirement of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. The following paragraphs
present the study authority, purpose, need, and process.
2.1 AUTHORITY
The replacement of the Fairfield Bridge was authorized by Section 101 of the
River and Harbor Act of 1970, along with four other Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway (AIWW) Bridge projects in North Carolina, contingent upon local
cooperation requirements as stated in the "Interim Report on Replacement of
Federally Owned Highway Bridges in North Carolina," published as House
Document 92-142, July 7, 1971:
Provided that the State of North Carolina contribute 25 percent of
the actual first cost of the replacement bridges either in a lump sum
prior to construction or in installments prior to the schedules as
required by the Chief of Engineers, the final apportionment of costs
to be made after the actual costs have been determined; and that upon
completion of each bridge, the State accept maintenance, replacement,
and ownership responsibilities thereof; the bridges to remain toll
free. The Board further recommends that ownership of each
replacement bridge be transferred to the State of North Carolina upon
completion.
The project was reauthorized for 100-percent Federal funding of first
costs by Section 601 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(P.L. 99-662). The State will be required to accept maintenance, replacement,
and ownership responsibilities after construction.
2.2 PURPOSE AND NEED
The project is needed because of the unsafe operating conditions associated
with structural deterioration and narrow roadway, traffic delays, and high
operation and maintenance costs of the existing bridge. The existing bridge
does not meet current design standards as recommended by the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation officials in terms of roadway
width, vertical roadway clearance, and design load (15 tons per vehicle). The
existing structure, constructed in 1935, is a 200-foot-long, steel, through-
truss, swing bridge, having a two-lane, 20-foot roadway (see Figure 1). The
overhead clearance is 13.5 feet for highway traffic and the horizontal
navigation clearance is 78 feet with a vertical clearance of 9.8 feet when
closed. Recent (1986) structural repairs to the center pier reduced the
horizontal clearance to 76.4 feet. Current design standards require a 24-foot
roadway, a vertical roadway clearance of 16 feet, and a minimum design load of
36 tons per vehicle.
Because of its narrow width and poor physical condition, the bridge was
converted to a one-lane, traffic-light-controlled structure in 1984, resulting
in traffic delays of 15 minutes or greater when the bridge is open. According
to the North Carolina Department of Transportation, the average traffic volume
is predicted to increase from the current 500 vehicles a day (1991) to 1,000
vehicles a day by the year 2015 (assumes a 3 percent increase per year in the
daily traffic count). These increases would significantly increase the
traffic delays at the existing bridge.
The average operation and maintenance costs are approximately $200,000
per year and would be expected to increase as the condition of the bridge
deteriorates.
2.3 STUDY PROCESS
The study process or format is consistent with the process defined and
recommended by Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water
and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies (WRC 1983). The major
planning tasks of problem identification, formulation of alternatives, impact
assessment, and evaluation were followed and are described in the following
pages. Selection of the most feasible plan was based on engineering
feasibility, cost effectiveness, environmental resource considerations, and
socio-economic considerations.
6
3.0 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
The intent of this section is to describe the study area and to identify
criteria for the replacement of Fairfield Bridge. Location criteria for the
new bridge alignment are based on an evaluation of engineering and economic
considerations, environmental and socio-economic resource conditions in the
study area, and.input from interest groups, governmental agencies, and the
general public.
3.1 STUDY AREA
The Fairfield Bridge over the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) is located
in the coastal plain region of North Carolina, approximately 37 miles from the
Atlantic Ocean and less than 17 miles from Pamlico Sound (see Figure 2). The
bridge is part of N.C. Highway 94 which runs from U.S. Highway 264 near New
Holland to U.S. Highway 64 in Columbia, North Carolina, and had an average
vehicles per day (avd) count of 500 vehicles in 1991.
Hyde County, as described in the 1992 Land Use Plan (Hyde), is very rural
in nature with a total 1990 population of 5,411 people (1990 Census).
Farming, fishing, state and local government employment, and forestry
activities are the major sources of income, while recreation and retirement
industries are becoming increasingly important. Approximately 35 percent of
the county's total land acreage of 405,760 acres is forested, 26 percent is in
crops and pasture, 29 percent is federally and state owned, and 9 percent is
small water areas and other (ditch banks, roadways, etc.). Only 0.7 percent
of the total land area is developed.
The specific area evaluated for the bridge replacement study includes the
immediate vicinity of the existing Fairfield Bridge. This study area is
primarily waters and wetlands with no agricultural fields or residential or
commercial structures. The proposed northern and southern borrow/disposal
areas (as well as the proposed mitigation site) are existing cleared and
ditched agricultural fields supporting corn and/or soybeans.
3.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT - EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section will provide a description of land use/cover in the study area
and a description of significant resources in the immediate project area.
Resources that will be described include wetlands; wildlife habitat; aquatic,
cultural, esthetic, and socio-economic resources; flood plains; prime and
unique farm land; and endangered species. Hazardous/toxic and radioactive
waste (HTRW) are also discussed.
For purposes of the bridge replacement study, significant resources are
described in terms of their values within the study area and their suitability
for highway and bridge construction. Obviously, when evaluating resources,
assumptions have to be made about the relative value of each resource
classification. The assumptions have been made as objectively as possible and
are explained in each resource description.
3.2.1 Land Use/Cover. Land use/cover for the study area is predominantly
waters and wetlands. The predominant land cover classes mapped from the
National Wetlands Inventory mapping include palustrine forested wetlands,
scrub-shrub wetlands, marsh communities, and a mixture of scrub-shrub/marsh
communities with scattered pockets of high ground. Developed categories
include utilities (powerline and telephone) and the existing N.C. Highway 94
roadway. There is no residential, agricultural and/or commercial development
within the three proposed bridge replacement alignments. The proposed
7
northern and southern borrow/disposal areas, as well as the proposed
mitigation site, are existing cleared and ditched agricultural fields
supporting corn and/or soybeans.
3.2.2 Wetlands. The wetlands delineation for the study area was based on the
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping, Hyde and Tyrrell Counties Soil
Surveys, previous wetland mapping contained in "Aquatic Resources Associated
with the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway" (Parnell, 1979), and field surveys.
The classification system used for identification and labeling follows the
system used for the NWI (Cowardin, et al., 1979). Figure 3 displays the
wetland categories present in the study area. Additional information on
wetland identification and evaluation in the study area is contained in
Appendix B.
, original soils of these wetlands are of the Dorovan Muck, Lafitte Mucky
Peat, Ponzer Muck, and Pungo Muck Series (see Figure 4) (U.S. Soil
Conservation Service, 1982). Loamy Udorthents are found parallel to the AIWW,
where areas of natural soil have been altered during the construction of the
AIWW by digging, grading, or filling (U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1982).
Deposition of dredged material is responsible for filling of some of the pre-
existing wetlands along the AIWW and the existing roadway ditches and
constitute a modification of the above-mentioned soil series. Soils seen in
wetlands were both undisturbed and disturbed. Undisturbed soils are generally
dark gray (10 YR 2/1; Munsell notation) mucks. Disturbed soils containing
fill materials consisting of sand can be detected by inclusions of brighter
colors and coarser textures in the upper soil profile. Some of the sandy
dredge fill materials have been in place for a sufficiently long period of
time to gain a gray color of their own or because of close contact with the
dark sands.
The majority of the study area consists of mildly brackish to freshwater
marshes, with some stands of pines, red maples, and cypress. The southeastern
quadrant of the project area supports the growth of a freshwater maple swamp.
There are wide man-made ditches adjacent to the existing roadway, which
support the growth of emergent aquatic plant species. The shoulders of the
existing highway are very low in elevation. Other than the roadway shoulders,
all vegetation is supported by organic soils (Histisols).
The following information was taken from the Regional Inventory for
Critical Natural Areas. Wetland Ecosystems, and Endangered Species Habitats of
the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Region, Phase II Report, dated September 1992
(LeGrand et al., 1992): A portion of the project area, south of the AIWW and
east and west of N.C. Highway 94, has been designated as the Upper Alligator
River Marshes and Forests natural area. This area was so called because of
its ecological significance in terms of quality and integrity of the natural
communities, the population size and condition of rare plants and animals, or
uniqueness or importance of the geomorphic features. For each site selected
for inclusion in this report, a level of significance is designated, using
National, State, and Regional (denoted A, B, and C, respectively). This
designation of significance follows that of the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program. The Upper Alligator River Marshes and Forests natural area
has been designated as having Regional (C) significance. All three proposed
bridge replacement alternatives are located within the Upper Alligator River
Marshes and Forests natural area.
Please note that the purpose of this report (LeGrand et al., 1992) is to
provide an inventory of natural areas in the Albemarle-Pamlico study area.
These designations are recommendations for protection only and do not carry
the weight of law or regulation.
All of the wetland areas represent important environmental resources that
provide habitat for fish and wildlife, a storage area for flood waters, and
8
some degree of pollution control. They also present engineering and economic
constraints to bridge construction because of the high water table and hydric
soil conditions.
Additional information on wetlands may be found in Appendix F, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Final Coordination Act Report.
3.2.3 Wildlife Habitat. The nearby wetlands and waters are habitat for a
substantial diversity of wildlife. Species lists are provided in the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Final Coordination Act Report found in Appendix F.
Some of the more common mammals that are expected to occur include white-
tailed deer, hispid cotton rat, muskrat, marsh rabbit, raccoon, opossum, and
otter (Lee et al., 1982). Black bear may also appear in this area. Among the
bird species that are expected to occur are great blue heron, pileated
woodpecker, red-shouldered hawk, and wood duck. Additionally, waterfowl may
use this area to overwinter (see Appendix F).
Information on the evaluation of wetlands is includedtin Appendix B.
Relative habitat values are found in Appendix C..
3.2.4 Aquatic Resources. The waters of the AIWW in the vicinity of the
Fairfield Bridge are assigned a water quality classification of SC by the
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM) (North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR), 1989). SC
waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and maintenance (including
fishing, fish and functioning primary nursery areas), wildlife, secondary
recreation, and any other usage except primary recreation or shellfishing for
market purposes (NCDEHNR, 1991). Moreover, the waters of the AIWW at the N.C.
Highway 94 bridge site are designated as joint fishing waters (15A NCAC 3Q
.0202 (15)). The regulations and licensing of fishing in joint fishing waters
are regulated by both the Marine Fisheries Commission and the Wildlife
Resources Commission (15A NCAC 3Q .0104). The NCDEM has not designated the
project area as Nutrient Sensitive Waters or Outstanding Resource Waters
(NCDEHNR, 1991). Also, the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries
(NCDEF) has not designated the project area as a primary nursery area
(NCDEHNR, 1989). This portion of the AIWW is not closed to shellfishing, but
because of the large amount of freshwater, oyster and clam populations are
small or nonexistent.
The waters of the Alligator River are classified as outstanding Resource
Waters by the NCDEM. This designation is given to waters with exceptional
water quality with no significant impacts from pollution and exceptional state
or national recreational or ecological significance (see Appendix F, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Final Coordination Act Report).
The area approximately 2 miles west of N.C. Highway.94 on the Alligator
River (Sample No. 4E-1) supports good freshwater fishing and the game species
most commonly taken are white perch (Morone americana), warmouth (Levomis
gulosus), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), and largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides) (Smith et al., 1965). In addition, anadromous species
including shad and herring (Alosa spp.), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), and
sturgeon (Acipenser spp.) may use the aquatic habitats through the project
area as a travel corridor between the ocean and freshwater habitats used for
spawning (Lee et al., 1980). American eel (Anguilla rostrata) is a
catadromous species found throughout the AIWW and its tributary streams.
The most recent study of benthic organisms applicable to the project area
was performed by Mr. William B. Smith and Mr. W. Donald Baker, Fishery
Biologists with the NCWRC (1965). Among the most abundant species in the
mucky substrates were the diptera, the ephemeroptera, the amphipoda, and the
pelecypoda.
9
Additional information on habitat for fish species may be found in
Appendix F, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Final Coordination Act Report.
3.2.5 Cultural Resources. Information on cultural resources within the study
area was derived from a field inspection, review of soil maps, and contact
with the North Carolina Division of Archives and History.
The majority of the bridge replacement study area would be classified as
low probability for archaeological sites due to soil drainage characteristics
(high water table) and the preponderance of wetlands. By letter dated
April 27, 1993, Mr. David Brook, the Deputy State Historic Preservation
Officer, stated "... we agree that the potential for affecting significant
archaeological sites is relatively low and that no archaeological survey is
necessary prior to the initiation of (bridge) construction." A copy of this
letter is found in Appendix D, Cultural Resources.
The borrow/disposal areas north and south of the existing bridge were
also inspected for evidence of cultural resources during an onsite meeting of
June 15, 1993. The 45-acre borrow/disposal site north of the bridge is
located near Kilkenny, west of N.C. Highway 94. According to the Tyrrell
County Soil Survey (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1988), the soils within
the proposed 45-acre borrow/disposal area consist primarily of Belhaven muck
(Ba) and Roper muck (Rp). The 35-acre borrow/disposal area south of the
bridge consists predominantly of Roper muck (personal communication, June 28,
1993, Mr. Rufus Croom, District Conservationist, U.S. Soil Conservation
Service). These soil units are described as very poorly drained soils formed
in fluvial and marine sediments under wet conditions (U.S. Department of
Agriculture, 1988). All of the proposed northern and southern borrow/disposal
areas have been drained and are presently farmed. These farm fields are
bisected by drainage canals which are 4 to 8 feet wide and 2 to 5 feet deep.
Since these borrow/disposal areas were once wetlands before they were
converted to farm fields, they have a very low potential for containing
significant archaeological sites. Several test cores were taken in both of
the proposed borrow/disposal areas and no artifacts of evidence of features
were found. Both of the proposed borrow/disposal areas were visually
inspected and no evidence of archaeological materials was found. No further
archaeological work is recommended if these areas are used for borrow/disposal
for this project.
The only standing structure which has historical significance is the
existing Fairfield Bridge. The existing swing-span bridge has been determined
to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. It represents a
distinctive type of bridge construction and is associated with the engineering
history of the country and with the development of the Intracoastal Waterway
system.
3.2.6 Esthetic and Recreational Resources. The study area offers a variety
of land use/cover components that can be seen along the existing highway (N.C.
Highway 94) and bridge. Some of the positive visual elements include the AIWW
(open water) and areas of open marsh. Negative visual elements in the study
area include multi-pole powerlines, which occur on the west side of the
existing bridge.
Because of-the flat terrain in the study area, the only visual barriers
present are vegetative. Most of the area along the north and south sides of
N.C. Highway 94 are buffered by at least a narrow band of trees. The
northeast side is more open because of the presence of the cattail marsh. No
residential, commercial, or agricultural areas are located on the north or
south sides of the existing bridge.
The recreational resources in the Alligator River and the AIWW consist of
causal hunting/fishing activities. No public boat launching facilities are
10
located within the project area. The area approximately 2 miles west of N.C.
Highway 94 on the Alligator River (Sample No. 4E-1) exhibits moderate to heavy
fishing pressure according to the local wildlife Protector (Smith et al.,
1965).
3.2.7 Socio-Economic Resources. Major land cover types in the study area
include mixed forest wetlands, streams and canals, and marsh. No residential,
agricultural, timbering, or commercial development is found within the study
area. The proposed northern and southern borrow/disposal areas (as well as
the proposed mitigation site) are existing cleared and ditched agricultural
fields supporting corn and/or soybeans.
3.2.8 Hazardous/Toxic and Radioactive Waste. The NCDEHNR, Division of Solid
Waste Management, provided listings of all the hazardous waste facilities
(small quantity generator, generator, transporter, exempt, disposer, storer,
and treater) and the Preremedial/Federal Facility Report, North Carolina
(NCDEHNR, 1993a and NCDEHNR, 1992, respectively). Review of these listings
for Hyde and Tyrrell Counties showed there were no hazardous waste facilities
or preremedial sites in the project area, the proposed borrow/disposal sites,
or the proposed mitigation site.
No known U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Superfund sites are located
in Hyde and Tyrrell Counties (NCDEHNR, 1993b). Additionally, no sanitary
landfills are located in the project area, the proposed borrow/disposal sites,
or the proposed mitigation sites (personal communication, June 9, 1993, Ms.
Angela A. Tooley, Hyde County Planner and Tyrrell County Land Use Plan 1990).
These findings will be confirmed during the preparation of plans and
specifications.
A large above-ground storage tank is located on property adjacent to the
Corps' property south of the existing Fairfield Bridge and east of N.C.
Highway 94. In light of the HTRW review for the proposed replacement of the
Fairfield Bridge, the owners were contacted regarding the contents of the
tank.
The following information was obtained during this telephone
conversation.
a. Many years ago, Kaiser Agricultural Chemicals barged nitrogen,
potash, and phosphate to the site off the AIWW. These three fertilizer
ingredients were mixed at the Spencer Tract in large above-ground storage
tanks, then weighed out and sold to the area farmers. After this operation
ended, Kaiser removed some of the storage tanks and the scales. At this date,
there is only one large above-ground storage tank at the Spencer Tract, which
has not been in use for a number of years.
b. Neither pesticides nor fuel oil has been stored in this large above-
ground tank on the Spencer Tract.
As a result of this preliminary HTRW assessment, there is no indication
that hazardous/toxic and radioactive material exists on this tract. If it
becomes apparent during the design stage that this tract may be impacted by
the construction of the bridge, appropriate measures will be instituted to
test the above-ground storage tank and surrounding soil for hazardous
material.
On September 14, 1992, an Environmental Review Guide for Operations
assessment was conducted by District personnel at the Corps' contractor-
operated Fairfield Bridge. The results of the Environmental Review Guide for
Operations assessment indicated that no hazardous waste sites or spills were
found on the Corps-owned property.
11
3.2.9 Flood Plains. All of the project area, proposed borrow/disposal areas,
and proposed mitigation sites lie within the 100-year flood plain, which is at
elevation 7 feet above mean sea level in Hyde and Tyrrell Counties (FEMA,
1992).
3.2.10 Prime and Unique Farmlands. Original soils of wetlands found within
the study area are Dorovan Muck, Lafitte Mucky Peat, Ponzer Muck, and Pungo
Muck Series (U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1982). Loamy Udorthents are
found parallel to the AIWW, where areas of natural soil have been altered
during the construction of the AIWW by digging, grading, or filling (U.S. Soil
Conservation Service, 1982).
Prime and unique soils in Hyde County are Bolling (2), Stockade (63), and
Yeopim (99), (Personal communication, May 27, 1993, Mr. Rufus Croom, District
Conservationist, U.S. Soil Conservation Service). The soils in the study area
are not considered prime and unique agriculture lands by the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service (Personal communication, May 27, 1993, Mr. Rufus Croom,
District Conservationist, U.S. Soil Conservation Service). The soils at the
southern borrow/disposal area are mapped by the Soil Conservation Service as
Roper Muck (78) (Personal communication, June 28, 1993, Mr. Rufus Croom,
District Conservationist, U.S. Soil Conservation Service).
Prime and unique soils in Tyrrell County are Altavista (AaA), Augusta
(At), State loamy fine sand (StB), and Tomotley (To) (U.S. Department of
Agriculture, 1988). The Tomotley soil series is considered prime farmland
only when it has been drained (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1988). The
soils at the northern borrow/disposal area and the mitigation site are mapped
by the Soil Conservation Service as Belhaven Muck and Roper Muck. These soil
series are not considered as prime and unique agriculture lands.
3.2.11 Endangered Species. On June 25, 1992, a letter was'sent to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) requesting lists of threatened (T), endangered (E) and threatened
(similarity of appearance, [T(S/A)]) species which should be considered in the
development and documentation of the proposed project. Lists provided by
these agencies were combined to develop the following composite list.
MAMMALS
finback whale - Balaenoptera phvsalus E
humpback whale - Megaptera novaeangliae E
right whale - Eubaleana glacialis E
sei whale - Balaenoptera borealis E
sperm whale - Phvseter catodon E
REPTILES
green sea turtle - Chelonia mydas T
hawksbill sea turtle - Eretmochelys imbricata E
Kemp's ridley sea turtle - Lepidochelys kempi E
leatherback sea turtle - Dermochelvs coriacea E
loggerhead sea turtle - Caretta T
American alligator - Alligator mississipiensis T(S/A)
BIRDS
arctic peregrine falcon - Falco perigrinus tundrius E
bald eagle - Haliateetus leucocephalus E
red-cockaded woodpecker - Picoides borealis E
12
FISHES
shortnose sturgeon - Acipenser brevirostrum E
PLANTS
sensitive joint-vetch - Aeschynomene virQinica T
The following information was taken from the
Carolina, by Mr. David DuMond, found in Appendix A (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, 1992): Habitats that were found in and near the proposed site of
the Fairfield Bridge Replacement were generally considered moderate-to-low
quality for regular usage by any of the threatened and endangered species
listed above (and on the previous page).
Since the habitats at the proposed bridge replacement site do not
approximate oceanic or marine environments (i.e., whales and sea turtles),
species that have been recorded from those habitats and from beach and dune
areas were not of concern. Since blasting or bridge pile construction will
not take place within the AIWW, sea turtles and the shortnose sturgeon should
not be affected by the proposed project. Also, low salinity environments
cannot support sea turtles.
Red-cockaded woodpeckers would not find suitable nesting habitat in these
wetlands. Occasional patches of pine might offer temporary cover and low
quality foraging habitat on a temporary basis only. No cavity trees or birds
were noted during the course of the field work.
Nesting habitat for bald eagles may be found in some of the higher trees
or dead snags of the area, but foraging habitat would be limited to the open
waters of the streams and lakes. Considering the hacking activities for this
species in the vicinity of Lake Mattamuskeet within the last few years, seeing
bald eagles in the vicinity of the proposed project site would not be
considered unusual. Otherwise, these habitat features would not figure
significantly into the areas to be impacted by the proposed bridge
construction. No eagles or possible eagle nests were seen during the course
of the field work at the proposed construction site.
Use of the area by Arctic peregrine falcons would be little more than
casual and would most likely be limited to periods of migration for this
species during the fall and spring.
Although uncommon in this geographic area, the American alligator would
find suitable foraging and nesting habitat along the AIWW and the streams and
canals it intersects. Areas in which impacts will be realized will be
surveyed again closer to the time of the bridge construction to ensure that
use by this species is not an important factor.
Two field surveys for the presence of sensitive joint-vetch (Aeschynomene
virainica) were conducted. On August 17 and 18, 1992, the proposed eastern
and western bridge alignments were surveyed and this species was not found
growing within either the eastern or western bridge alignments
(see Appendix A).
Field surveys were conducted for sensitive joint-vetch (Aeschvnomene
virQinica) at the potential borrow/disposal areas on June 15, 1993. This
species, known to occur in both tidal freshwater marshes and ditch banks, has
13
been recorded previously from the project region, with several populations
having been found in flat, shallow ditches near the north shore of Lake
Mattamuskeet.
Both of the potential borrow/disposal areas for the Fairfield Bridge
project are currently under cultivation for soybean and corn production.
Within and surrounding these fields lies a network of primary and feeder
ditches which are frequently maintained for crop drainage. These ditches were
found to be steep-sided and covered with a rank growth of weed, vine, and
shrub species. No sensitive joint-vetch was detected along any of these
ditches. Further, none of these ditches are presently considered to offer
suitable habitat for the species, due to the excessive drainage occurring on
the steep ditch slopes, intense competition for nutrients and sunlight, and a
lack of a nearby seed source.
No indications of threatened or endangered species were noted during the
course of the field work.
By letters dated September 20, 1993, and December 15, 1993 (copies found
in Appendix J), the NMFS and the USFWS, respectively, concurred with our no
effect determination. If any of the conditions found within these letters
take place the Corps will then reinitiate formal consultation with the NMFS
and USFWS subject to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended.
3.3 FUTURE CONDITIONS
The discussion of future conditions is based on a without-project
condition and is based on the assumption that the existing bridge is not
replaced. The main categories of change, including land use, highway traffic,
waterway traffic, and bridge condition are described along with the effects of
these changes on existing resources.
3.3.1 Land Use. A majority of the lands on the north side of the AIWW are
owned by the North Carolina Nature Conservancy. The areas that are not owned
by the Nature Conservancy are forested, marsh, or scrub-shrub wetlands that
are regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as amended, and by the
North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act. It is, therefore, expected that
the study area would remain relatively unchanged in the future without the
project.
3.3.2 Highway Traffic. According to figures provided by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT), the average daily traffic count is
expected to increase from 500 vehicles per day (vpd) recorded in 1991, to
1,000 vpd in 2015. Approximately 15 percent of the traffic in 2015 is
predicted to be truck traffic.
3.3.3 Waterway Traffic. Both commercial and recreational traffic on the AIWW
are expected to increase. According to recent projections for bridge openings
prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Appendix
G), the number of openings will increase to 6,336 a year by the year 2020.
Current bridge openings are approximately 4,550 a year.
3.3.4 Bridge Condition. The existing swing-span bridge over the AIWW at
Fairfield requires yearly maintenance to keep it open and functional. As
described in an earlier section, the bridge has been limited to a traffic-
light-controlled, one-lane bridge because of unsafe operating conditions. It
is anticipated that the condition of the bridge will continue to deteriorate,
resulting in large-scale bridge maintenance projects and lengthy bridge
closures.
14
The projected increase in highway and waterway traffic will hasten the
rate of bridge deterioration as a greater number of trucks and other heavy
vehicles cross the bridge and the number of bridge openings increase. Since
August 1983, the Fairfield Bridge and/or its fender system have been damaged
seven times by highway traffic and two times by waterway accidents involving
the existing bridge, which currently provides a 76.4-foot horizontal
navigation clearance. This number is expected to increase with additional
waterway traffic.
3.3.5 Effects of Future Conditions on Resources. This section discusses the
effect of anticipated changes in the study area on the environmental,
cultural, and socio-economic resources.
3.3.5.1 Wildlife Habitat. Habitat value of the forested wetlands and the
marshes will most likely remain the same in the project area since much of the
land is owned by the North Carolina Nature Conservancy and is covered by
Federal and state laws regulating development in waters and wetlands.
Residential development, agricultural clearing, timbering activities, and
commercial expansion will not reduce the habitat values in the study area.
3.3.5.2 Wetlands. The palustrine forested wetlands, scrub-shrub wetlands,
marsh communities, and a mixture of scrub-shrub/marsh communities within the
study area are expected to undergo limited or no adverse impacts. Because of
state and Federal laws regulating the placement of fill in wetlands, no change
in status can occur without the permit review process. No significant change
is expected in the emergent wetlands.
3.3.5.3 Aquatic Resources. Some decline in aquatic resource conditions is
expected within the study area as a result of nonpoint source pollution.
Increased runoff from farms in the watershed may increase sediments and
pollutants.
3.3.5.4 Cultural Resources. Given the low potential in the study area for
the presence of significant sites, there will be no impact on significant
prehistoric archaeological or historic sites, except the existing swing-span
bridge (see Section 7.3 and Appendix D, Cultural Resources).
3.3.5.5 Esthetic Resources. Minor changes are anticipated in the esthetic
resource conditions of the study area. No commercial, agricultural, or
residential development will occur within the project area.
3.3.5.6 Socio-Economic Resources. Increases in traffic on N.C. Highway 94
and increases in AIWW traffic will result in a greater number of bridge
openings and longer lines of highway and waterborne traffic. This will result
in an increase in air and noise pollution in the project area. Circulation
within the community and from one side of the bridge to the other will become
more difficult. As the community of Fairfield expands, there will likely be
an increased demand on the local businesses.
3.4 PROBLEMS, NEEDS, AND OPPORTUNITIES
The identification of problems, needs, and opportunities is based on an
analysis of existing and future conditions. The major problems in the study
area related to the bridge replacement project are the poor structural and
operational condition of the existing bridge, future increases in traffic and
traffic delays, the associated effects within the Fairfield community, and
locational constraints.
3.4.1 Bridge Condition. The condition of the existing bridge has
deteriorated to the point that only one lane of traffic is allowed across at a
time. It fails to meet current design standards, such as load capacity,
roadway width and height, and vertical clearance above the AIWW. Future
15
operational delays are expected as the number of openings increase. If the
existing swing-span bridge were closed, a 100-mile, one-way detour would be
required to go from one side of the AIWW to the other.
3.4.2 Traffic Increases. Increases in waterway traffic, with the requirement
for more bridge openings, and increases in highway traffic on N.C. Highway 94
will begin to cause longer delays and longer lines. This will result in
increased noise and air pollution and will cause disruptions in circulation
within the Fairfield community.
3.4.3 Locational Problems. Waters and wetlands are located on either side of
the existing N.C. Highway 94 and bridge. Any new bridge alignment will impact
waters and wetlands. No communities, businesses, agricultural, or residential
developments are located within the project area.
The existing wetlands in the study area pose a locational constraint
because of institutional restrictions and construction difficulties. The
placement of fill in the wetlands is regulated by the Federal Government under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended. Protection is also
afforded wetlands under Executive Order 11990, which requires that the Federal
Government avoid impacts to wetlands unless there is no practicable
alternative. The high water content of wetland soils poses an additional
construction restraint.
16
4.0 FORMULATION OF PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES
This section will present the engineering, economic, environmental, and social
criteria used to develop alternative alignments and borrow/disposal site
locations and a description of each alternative.
4.1 PLAN FORMULATION RATIONALE
The rationale for developing new bridge alignments and designating potential
borrow/disposal sites is best value. Best value is determined based on a
combination of engineering, economic, and environmental considerations.
Alternatives were, therefore, formulated that offer the best engineering
conditions, least economic costs, and the least environmental and social
impacts. Planning criteria were established to guide the formulation of
alternatives.
4.1.1 Bridge and Roadway Alignments. The bridge design for each alignment is
a high-level, fixed-span bridge with roadway approaches and connector roads.
Alignment alternatives on each side of the existing bridge were considered
(see Figure 5).
4.1.1.1 Engineering Criteria. Engineering and design criteria are primarily
those established by the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials as supplemented by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) and as specifically recommended for this project.
Criteria included:
Design speed: 60 m.p.h.
Maximum degree of horizontal curve: 4*451
*
Maximum allowable grade: 5 percent
Bridge design live loading: HS 20-44 (w/overload 40 tons per
vehicle)
Minimum clear bridge width: 30 feet
Minimum vertical clearance for bridge: 65 feet
Minimum horizontal navigational clearance: 90 feet
*NCDOT requested in review of preliminary alignments that 3° curves be
used.
4.1.1.2 Economic Criteria. Bridge alignment should be as short as possible
to minimize initial construction costs and long-term maintenance costs.
Avoid to the maximum extent possible costly relocations (utilities).
4.1.1.3 Environmental Criteria. Avoid wetlands to the maximum extent
possible. These include the emergent and forested wetlands.
Avoid or minimize in-water construction and/or man-made canal
relocations.
Avoid areas that have high wildlife habitat value. These include the
wetland areas adjacent to the tributaries and the forested wetlands that are
located primarily on the southwest side of the bridge.
4.1.1.4 Social Criteria. Avoid permanent residences to the maximum extent
possible in order to minimize community disruption.
Minimize impacts to commercial properties in order to minimize community
disruption.
17
Minimize the visual intrusion of the high-rise bridge on the community.
Maintain circulation patterns within the existing community.
4.1.2 Borrow/Disposal Site Selection. The total amount of material needed
for highway approach fills and temporary construction/detour fills are
estimated to be approximately 90,000 to 200,000 cubic yards. In addition,
there will be a requirement to dispose of unsuitable material from the
proposed borrow site and a small amount from the bridge alignment. The borrow
and disposal sites are adjacent to each other so that if there is any
unsuitable material from the borrow site, which cannot be used for the
proposed bridge construction, it can be more economically disposed of next to
the borrow area. 'Approximately 35 acres of borrow/disposal area on the south
and 45 acres of borrow/disposal area on the north will be required. The
amount of land needed to provide this amount of borrow material would be
approximately 25 acres on the south to 35 acres on the north. In addition to
these northern and southern borrow/disposal sites, the contractor may find an
existing commercial source or a closer borrow/disposal area. If this is the
case, it will be up to the contractor to obtain all required local, state, or
Federal permits if any other than the northern and southern borrow/disposal
sites-are used.
4.1.2.1 Engineering Criteria. Areas of the high water table should be
avoided to the maximum extent possible because of dewatering requirements.
Borrow/disposal sites should be capable of yielding a total of 200,000
cubic yards of suitable fill material.
4.1.2.2 Economic Criteria. Borrow sites should be located within an
economical haul distance from the project.
Maximize the use of high-ground areas to reduce dewatering costs.
Use cleared areas to the maximum extent possible to reduce land clearing
and preparation costs.
4.1.2.3 Environmental Criteria. Locate borrow sites in prior-converted farm
fields to reduce disturbance of wildlife habitat.
Avoid the use of wetlands.
Avoid the use of prime and unique farmlands.
4.1.2.4 Social Criteria. Locate borrow sites away from residences.
Avoid the use of valuable farmland.
4.2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The development of alternative plans included replacement with new roadway and
bridge alignment, replacement following existing alignment, and "no action."
A total of three alignments were developed.
The same designs for bridge and roadway approaches were used for
evaluation of all of the alternative alignments. Each alternative bridge
alignment used American Association of State Highway and Transportation
officials prestressed girder approach spans and navigation spans using three-
span, continuous segmental, concrete, box girder design with a 300- to 380-
foot navigation span (depending on the alignment), 180- to 228-foot adjacent
spans, and a vertical navigation clearance of 65 feet over the AIWW. The
18
single box concept has a deck width of 33 feet 1 inch. The variable depth box
is 8 feet deep at the mid and end span locations and up to 20 feet deep at the
center bents.
The approach roadways would be 24 feet wide, two-lane paved surfaced, with
cleared rights-of-way. Right-of-way widths will vary from 430 feet at the
highest point of the approach fills to 225 feet at the connections with N.C.
Highway 94.
4.2.1 New Alignments. Information provided on approach lengths includes the
roadway from the point that it leaves the existing highway to the point that
it meets the bridge.
4.2.1.1 Alignment 1. Western Alignment (see Plate P-3 in Appendix H) - This
alignment is located approximately 215 feet west of the existing bridge and
the total length is about 6,310 feet (includes bridge and permanent roadway).
The fill causeway at the northern end of the alignment is 453 feet long. The
temporary connecting access road/detour from the existing roadway alignment is
about 2,062 feet in length. The southern fill causeway is 590 feet long; its
connector access roadway is 1,551 feet in length; and its temporary detour
road is 875 feet in length. Construction of the northern and southern fill
causeways and access roadways will cause the minor filling of a portion of the
adjacent man-made roadway canals but these man-made canals will be relocated
if they are directly connected to the AIWW. The pile-supported bridge between
the fill causeways spans 3,714 feet of water and/or wetlands. The estimated
cost of this alternative for bridge, roadway and appurtenance is about
$21,482,950 (see Table 3).
4.2.1.2 Alignment 2. Center Alignment (see Plate P-6 in Appendix H) - This
alignment is located approximately 65 feet east of the existing bridge and the
total length is about 7,290 feet. The fill causeway at the northern end of
the alignment is 480 feet long. The connecting road giving access from the
existing roadway alignment is 1,310 feet in length. The temporary detour road
from the existing roadway alignment to the connecting access road is 755 feet
long. The southern fill causeway is 550 feet long; its connector access
roadway is 1,250 feet in length; and its temporary detour road is 950 feet
long. Construction of the northern and southern fill causeways and access
roadways will cause the filling of a portion of the adjacent man-made roadway
canals but these man-made canals will be relocated if they are directly
connected to the AIWW. The pile-supported bridge between the fill causeways
spans about 3,700 feet of water and/or wetlands. The estimated cost of this
alternative for bridge, roadway and appurtenance is about $22,156,700 (see
Table 3).
4.2.1.3 Alignment 3. Eastern Alignment (see Plates 9 and 10 in Appendix H) -
This alignment is located approximately 160 feet east of the existing bridge
and the total length is about 7,480 feet. The fill causeway at the northern
end of the alignment is 460 feet long. The connecting road giving access from
the existing roadway alignment is 1,400 feet in length. The temporary detour
road from the existing roadway alignment to the connecting access road is 600
feet long. The southern fill causeway is 1,530 feet long; its connector
access roadway is 340 feet in length; and its temporary detour road is 1,720
feet long. Construction of the northern fill causeway and access roadways
will cause the filling of a portion of the adjacent man-made roadway canals
but these man-made canals will be relocated. Construction of the southern
fill causeway will cause either the placement of a culvert in the existing
canal and backfilling or the filling of the canal and the relocation of the
existing roadway canal. This existing roadway canal is connected to the AIWW.
The pile-supported bridge will span 3,750 feet of water/wetlands. The
estimated cost of this alternative for bridge, roadway and appurtenance is
about $22,561,900 for the canal relocation and $22,292,400 with the culvert
(see Table 3).
19
4.2.2 Alternatives Dropped from Further Study.
4.2.2.1 Existing alignment. Construction of a new roadway and bridge over
the existing alignment would involve using the existing road as a work
platform. It would require the closure of N.C. Highway 94 for the
construction period of the bridge due to the work area required for cranes to
place the girders, for storage of equipment and materials, and for workmen and
public safety. Rerouting traffic during the approximate 3-year construction
period is impractical and cost prohibitive since it would require a 100-mile,
one-way detour to go from one side of the AIWW to the other. This alternative
was dropped from further consideration.
4.2.2.2 No-Action Alternative. The no-action alternative would mean
continued use of the existing swing-span bridge. The already high maintenance
costs and unsafe operating conditions would continue to worsen as the bridge
structure ages and traffic increases. Traffic delays would worsen and create
congestion problems within the Fairfield community. This alternative was not
believed to be reasonable and was dropped from further consideration.
20
5.0 ASSESSMENT OF DETAILED PLANS
As described in previous sections, the locations of each bridge alignment and
borrow/disposal sites were selected to satisfy, or partially satisfy, a set of
economic, engineering, environmental, and socio-economic planning criteria.
There are differences in the degree to which the criteria are satisfied by
each plan and differences in the effect of each plan on the resources in the
study area. The purpose of this section is to describe each of the
alternative plans and to identify the direct and indirect effects of each of
the proposed alignments and borrow areas on the resources in the study area.
The effects associated with the alignment include the approach fills, bridge
structure, access roads, and rights-of-way.
5.1 BRIDGE ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES
The bridge design is the same for each alternative and consists of a high-
rise, fixed-span bridge constructed of cast-in-place concrete piers and
supports. A typical concept is displayed on Figure S. The bridge would have
a minimum height over the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) of 65 feet
above mean high water with a minimum horizontal navigational clearance of 90
feet. Earthen approach fills would lead to the bridge structure on each side
of the AIWW. Access roads would be required at each of the two tie-backs to
N.C. Highway 94. Differences in the effects associated with each bridge
alternative result from location and length. The three proposed alignments
are shown in Figure 5.
5.1.1 Alicrnment 1. This alignment crosses the AIWW approximately 215 feet
west of the existing bridge. The total length of the proposed causeway,
permanent access roads, and bridge is approximately 6,310 feet. The western
alignment will be such that much of the north end of the bridge will be
located on a 2-degree horizontal curve; however, the main span will be located
on a tangent with a slight skew (6.21 degrees) to the AIWW. The perpendicular
crossing of this alternative on a relatively straight section of the AIWW
makes the navigation alignment good, with ample distance to maneuver AIWW
traffic for passage through the 90-foot-wide AIWW channel. From a
construction perspective, this alternative would not require extensive
vegetation clearing.
5.1.1.1 Acruatic Habitat. Eliminating footings in the AIWW channel with the
box girder or other long span bridge design would avoid any losses to the
aquatic resources. In waters found within the adjacent canals off the AIWW,
approximately 1.7 acres of bottom habitat will be filled as a result of
causeway/access road construction and 0.5 acre of water will be spanned by the
bridge.
5.1.1.2 Wetlands. The following wetland communities would be permanently
impacted by the proposed western alignment.
a. Palustrine Forested Wetlands (PF06F and PF01/4B) - The filling of
approximately 0.7 acre, the excavation of 0.8 acre, and the bridging of 0.2
acre of forested wetlands as a result of the bridge construction.
b. Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetlands (PSS7B and PSS677) - The filling of
approximately 0.7 acre, the excavation of 0.1 acre, and the spanning of 1.1
acres of scrub-shrub wetlands with the bridge and/or fill causeway.
C. Marshes (E2EMIP) - The filling of approximately 1.2 acres and the
spanning of 0.5 acre of marsh as a result of the bridge construction.
d. Mixture of Scrub-Shrub/Marsh Communities (PSS6/EMIT) - The filling of
approximately 0.5 acre, the excavation of 0.4 acre, and the spanning of 0.3
21
acre of a combination of scrub-shrub and marsh wetlands with the bridge and/or
fill causeway.
The total permanently affected wetland area to be filled or excavated as
a result of the proposed western bridge alignment is about 4.4 acres.
Additionally, 2.1 acres of wetlands will be bridged by the proposed western
alignment.
The following wetland communities would be temporarily impacted by the
construction of detour roads for the proposed western alignment.
a. Northern Detour - The filling of approximately 0.2 acre of a mixture
of scrub-shrub/marsh communities (PSS6/EMIT) and 0.1 acre of marsh (E2EMIP).
b. Southern Detour - The filling of approximately 0.4 acre of palustrine
forested wetlands (PF01/4B).
The total wetland acreage temporarily impacted is about 0.7 acre.
As indicated above, these water/wetland impacts are temporary. All
detour roads will be constructed on geotextile fabric. Once construction is
complete, the fill material will be removed and the geotextile fabric will be
taken up. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has used
this technique in constructing the Ocean Isle Beach bridge, the I-40 bridge
over the Northeast Cape Fear River, and U.S. Highway 74/76 at the Bolton
Bypass. The temporarily disturbed areas will revegetate naturally. If after
one growing season the natural vegetation has failed to vegetate the detour
areas, the Corps will replant the area. Since this is a temporary impact and
authorized by Nationwide Permit No. 15 (see Section 7.0), these areas will not
be included in the proposed mitigation plan.
All wetland acreages are jurisdictional wetlands under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended.
5.1.1.3 Wildlife Habitat Category. About 21.7 relative habitat units maybe
impacted by the proposed western alignment. Relative habitat units are
determined by multiplying the number of acres affected (8.7 acres) by its
relative habitat value, much of which is attributable to losses of cattail
marsh, pine-dominated palustrine forested, and scrub-shrub wetlands. (See
Appendix C).
5.1.1.4 Cultural Resources. Since the study area is classified as low
probability for archaeological sites due to past land disturbance, soil
drainage characteristics (high water table), and the preponderance of
wetlands, no impacts to archaeological resources are anticipated. The
existing bridge, which is eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places, would have to be removed.
5.1.1.5 Esthetics and Recreational Resources. The placement of a high-rise
bridge is not compatible with the forested nature of this part of the study
area. It would introduce a man-made structural element into a natural
setting. However, the visibility of the structure from the primary
residential community at Fairfield would be low because of its location 3.7
miles north of the community.
The proposed action should not seriously impact recreational resources in
the Alligator River or in the AIWW. The casual hunting/fishing activities on
the Alligator River and/or the AIWW will not even be temporarily disrupted
during the construction of the proposed bridge replacement. The presence of
construction equipment at the proposed bridge site should not impact esthetics
or recreation use compared with the current frequency of boat and barge
22
traffic on the AIWW. The only potential esthetic resource impacts would be
related to elevated noise levels during the daylight hours and some increased
levels of turbidity in the man-made roadside ditches caused by
excavation/filling. Noise and turbidity levels would return to background
readings shortly after cessation of construction activities. Public
observance of the increased levels of noise and turbidity should be restricted
to those individuals traveling across the Fairfield Bridge. Additionally,
these impacts should be minimal since the project site is not located near
populated areas.
5.1.1.6 Socio-Economic Resources. No residences, businesses, or agricultural
fields located along N.C. Highway 94 would be displaced as a result of this
activity. Because of its distance from Fairfield, there would be little
impact to the internal traffic and communication patterns within the
community.
There would likely be a reduction of noise impacts associated with
highway traffic as a result of eliminating the lines of traffic waiting for
the bridge.
5.1.1.7 Hazardous/Toxic and Radioactive Waste. A preliminary assessment
screening was conducted for the proposed western alignment. The results of
this preliminary assessment screening did not indicate that any HTRW activity
had occurred within this area.
5.1.2 Alignment 2. This center alignment crosses the AIWW approximately
65 feet east of the existing bridge. The total length of the proposed
causeway and bridge is approximately 7,290 feet. The highway alignment for
traffic is good with no reverse curves and relatively straight bridge and
approach fills.
5.1.2.1 Aquatic Habitat. Eliminating footings in the AIWW channel or in any
waters adjacent to the AIWW channel with the long span bridge design would
avoid any losses to the aquatic resources. In waters found within the
adjacent canals off the AIWW, approximately 1.7 acres of bottom habitat will
be filled and 0.5 acre of water will be bridged.
5.1.2.2 Wetlands. The following wetland communities would be permanently
impacted by the proposed center alignment.
a. Palustrine Forested Wetlands (PF01/4B and PFO6F) - The filling of
approximately 1.5 acres, the excavation of 1.1 acres, and the spanning of 0.5
acre of forested wetlands as a result of the bridge construction.
b. Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetlands (PSS677) - The excavation of 0.2 acre
and the spanning of 0.3 acre of scrub-shrub wetlands with the bridge and/or
fill causeway.
C. Marshes (E2EM1P) - The filling of approximately 2.2 acres and the
spanning of 0.8 acre of marsh as a result of constructing the proposed bridge.
d. Mixture of Scrub-Shrub/Marsh Communities (PSS6/EMIT) - The filling of
approximately 0.1 acre, the excavation of 0.5 acre, and the spanning of 0.3
acre of a combination of scrub-shrub and marsh wetlands with the bridge and/or
fill causeway.
The total permanently affected wetland area to be filled or excavated as
a result of the proposed center bridge alignment is about 5.6 acres.
Additionally, 1.9 acres of wetlands will be bridged by the proposed center
alignment.
23
The following communities would be temporarily impacted by the
construction of detour roads for the proposed center alignment.
a. Northern Detour - The filling of approximately 0.6 acre of a mixture
of scrub-shrub/marsh communities (PSS6/EMIT) and 0.2 acre of canal.
b. Southern Detour - The filling of approximately 0.3 acre of palustrine
forested wetlands (PFO6F), approximately 0.5 acre of palustrine forested
wetlands (PF01/4B), and 0.6 acre of water (man-made canal).
The total acreage temporarily impacted is about 2.2 acres.
As indicated above, these water/wetland impacts are temporary. All
detour roads will be constructed on geotextile fabric. Once construction is
complete, the fill material will be removed and the geotextile fabric will be
taken up. The NCDOT has used this technique in constructing the Ocean Isle
Beach bridge, I-40 bridge over the Northeast Cape Fear River, and U.S. Highway
74/76 at the Bolton Bypass. The temporarily disturbed areas will revegetate
naturally. If after one growing season the natural vegetation has failed to
vegetate the detour areas, the Corps will replant the area. Since this is a
temporary impact, these areas will not be included in the proposed mitigation
plan.
All of the wetland acreages are jurisdictional wetlands under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended.
5.1.2.3 Wildlife Habitat Category. About 25.9 relative habitat units may be
impacted by the proposed center alignment. Relative habitat units are
determined by multiplying the number of acres affected (9.7 acres) by its
relative habitat value, much of which is attributable to losses of cattail
marsh, pine-dominated palustrine forested, and scrub-shrub wetlands.
5.1.2.4 Cultural Resources. Since the study area is classified as low
probability for archaeological sites due to past land disturbance, soil
drainage characteristics (high water table), and the preponderance of
wetlands, no impacts to archaeological resources are anticipated. The
existing bridge, which is eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places, would have to be removed.
5.1.2.5 Esthetics and Recreational Resources. Because of its proximity to
the existing bridge and roadway and associated development, this alternative
would be moderately compatible with its surroundings. The visibility of the
bridge, however, would be high because of the bridge height and proximity to
residential areas.
The proposed action should not seriously impact recreational resources in
the Alligator River or in the AIWW. The casual hunting/fishing activities on
the Alligator River and/or the AIWW will not even be temporarily disrupted
during the construction of the proposed bridge replacement. The presence of
construction equipment at the proposed bridge site should not impact esthetics
or recreation use compared with the current frequency of boat and barge
traffic on the AIWW. The only potential esthetic resource impacts would be
related to elevated noise levels during the daylight hours and some increased
levels of turbidity in the man-made roadside ditches caused by
excavation/filling. Noise and turbidity levels would return to background
readings shortly after cessation of construction activities. Public
observance of the increased levels of noise and turbidity should be restricted
to those individuals traveling across the Fairfield Bridge. Additionally,
these impacts should be minimal since the project site is not located near
populated areas.
24
5.1.2.6 Socio-Economic Resources. No residences, businesses, or agricultural
fields will be impacted as a result of this activity. Because of its distance
from the Fairfield Bridge, there would be little impact to the internal
traffic and communication patterns within the community.
There would likely be a reduction of noise impacts associated with
highway traffic as a result of eliminating the lines of traffic waiting for
the bridge.
5.1.2.7 Hazardous/Toxic and Radioactive Waste. A preliminary assessment
screening was conducted for the property south and east of the existing bridge
(Flave Spencer Tract). The results of this preliminary assessment screening
did not indicate that any HTRW activity had occurred within this area.
5.1.3 Alignment 3. This alignment crosses the AIWW approximately 160 feet
east of the existing bridge. The total length of the proposed causeway and
bridge is approximately 7,480 feet. The relatively straight bridge geometry
with no reverse curves will improve the highway traffic safety conditions.
Construction of the southern fill causeway will cause either the filling of
the canal and the relocation of the existing roadway canal or the placement of
a culvert in the existing canal and backfilling.
5.1.3.1 Aquatic Habitat. Aquatic resource impacts (National Wetland
Inventory) would include:
a. The southern bridge pier and footing will be constructed in waters
adjacent to the AIWW; this will result in the filling of 0.2-acre bottom
habitat.
b. In waters found within the adjacent canals off the AIWW,
approximately 2.2 acres of bottom habitat will be filled and 0.4 acre of water
will be bridged.
5.1.3.2 Wetlands. The following wetland communities would be permanently
impacted by the proposed eastern alignments.
With the Canal Relocation (see Plate P-10):
a. Forested Wetlands (PF01/4B and PF06F) - The filling of approximately
1.5 acres, the excavation of 2.2 acres, and the spanning of 0.5 acre of
forested wetlands as a result of the bridge construction.
b. Scrub-Shrub Wetlands (PSS7B and PSS677) - The excavation of
approximately 0.3 acre and the spanning of 0.6 acre of scrub-shrub wetlands as
a result of the bridge construction.
C. Marshes (E2EMIP) - The filling of about 1.0 acres and the bridge
crossing of 1.1 acres of marsh.
d. Mixture of Scrub-Shrub/Marsh Communities (PSS6/EMIT) - The filling of
approximately 0.4 acre, the excavation of 0.4 acre, and the spanning of
0.4 acre of a combination of scrub-shrub and marsh wetlands with the bridge
and/or fill causeway.
With the Culvert (see Plate P-9):
a. Forested Wetlands (PF01/4B and PF06F) - The filling of approximately
1.5 acres and the spanning of 0.5 acre of forested wetlands as a result of the
bridge construction.
b. Scrub-Shrub Wetlands (PSS7B and PSS677) - The excavation of about 0.3
acre and the bridge crossing of 0.6 acre of scrub-shrub wetlands.
25
C. Marshes (E2EMIP) - The filling of about 1.0 acre and the bridge
crossing of 1.1 acres of marsh.
d. Mixture of Scrub-Shrub/Marsh Communities (PSS6/EMIT) - The filling of
approximately 0.4 acre, the excavation of 0.4 acre, and the spanning of 0.4
acre of a combination of scrub-shrub and marsh wetlands with the bridge and/or
fill causeway.
The total permanently affected wetland area to be filled or excavated as
a result of the proposed eastern bridge alignment is about 5.8 acres and
3.6 acres for the canal relocation and culvert, respectively. Additionally,
2.6 acres of wetlands for the canal relocation and for the culvert will be
bridged by the proposed eastern alignment.
The following communities would be temporarily impacted by the
construction of detour roads for the proposed eastern alignment.
a. Northern Detour - The filling of approximately 0.4 acre of marsh
(E2EMIP) and 0.1 acre of the Alligator River.
b. Southern Detour - The filling of approximately 1.3 acre of palustrine
forested wetlands (PF01/4B) and 1.0 acres of water (man-made canal).
The total acreage temporarily impacted is about 2.8 acres for the eastern
alignment.
As indicated above, these water/wetland impacts are temporary. All
detour roads will be constructed on geotextile fabric. Once construction is
complete, the fill material will be removed and the geotextile fabric will be
taken up. The NCDOT has used this technique in constructing the Ocean Isle
Beach bridge, I-40 bridge over the Northeast Cape Fear River, and U.S. Highway
74/76 at the Bolton Bypass. The temporarily disturbed areas will revegetate
naturally. If after one growing season, the natural vegetation has failed to
vegetate the detour areas, the Corps will replant the area. Since this is a
temporary impact, these areas will not be included in the proposed mitigation
plan.
All of the wetland acreages are jurisdictional wetlands under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended.
5.1.3.3 Wildlife Habitat Category. About 21.3 relative habitat units may be
impacted by the culvert called for in the proposed eastern alignment and about
27.9 relative habitat units may be impacted by the canal relocation in the
proposed eastern alignment. Relative habitat units are determined by
multiplying the number of acres affected (9.0 acres for the culvert and 11.2
acres for the canal relocation) by its relative habitat value, much of which
is attributable to losses of cattail marsh, pine-dominated palustrine forested
and scrub-shrub wetlands.
5.1.3.4 Cultural Resources. Since the study area is classified as low
probability for archaeological sites due to past land disturbance, soil
drainage characteristics (high-water table), and the preponderance of
wetlands, no impacts to archaeological resources are anticipated. The
existing bridge, which is eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places, would have to be removed.
5.1.3.5 Esthetics and Recreational Resources. The proximity of this
alternative to the existing bridge and roadway and associated development
makes this alternative moderately compatible with its surroundings.
Visibility will be moderate to high from the existing residences.
26
The proposed action should not seriously impact recreational resources in
the Alligator River or in the AIWW. The casual hunting/fishing activities on
the Alligator River and/or the AIWW will not even be temporarily disrupted
during the construction of the proposed bridge replacement. The presence of
construction equipment at the proposed bridge site should not impact esthetics
or recreation use compared with the current frequency of boat and barge
traffic on the AIWW. The only potential esthetic resource impacts would be
related to elevated noise levels during the daylight hours and some increased
levels of turbidity in the man-made roadside ditches caused by
excavation/filling. Noise and turbidity levels would return to background
readings shortly after cessation of construction activities. Public
observance of the increased levels of noise and turbidity should be restricted
to those individuals traveling across the Fairfield Bridge. Additionally,
these impacts should be minimal since the project site is not located near
populated areas.
5.1.3.6 Socio-Economic Resources. No residences, businesses, or agricultural
fields will be impacted as a result of this activity. Because of its distance
from the Fairfield Bridge, there would be little impact to the internal
traffic and communication patterns within the community.
There would likely be a reduction of noise impacts associated with
highway traffic as a result of eliminating the lines of traffic waiting for
the bridge.
5.1.3.7 Hazardous/Toxic and Radioactive Waste. A preliminary assessment
screening was conducted for the property south and east of the existing bridge
(Flave Spencer Tract). The results of this preliminary assessment screening
did not indicate that any HTRW activity had occurred within this area.
5.2 BORROW/DISPOSAL SITE ALTERNATIVES
Approximately 90,000 to 200,000 cubic yards of material will be needed for
bridge approach, temporary construction/detour roads, staging areas, and
access road fills for each alternative. The type of material to be used will
include sands, silts, and clays. In addition to borrow areas, adjacent
disposal areas are also required. The primary reason for disposal areas being
located adjacent to the proposed borrow areas is so that the contractor can
place any material unsuitable for fill immediately within the adjacent
disposal area while excavating the borrow area. Secondarily, the disposal
area may be used if any unsuitable material is found within the proposed
bridge alignment. Finally, once the temporary construction/detour roadways
are removed, the resulting fill material will be trucked and retained within
the disposal areas.
A number of potential borrow areas to the north and south of the waterway
were identified. All potential borrow areas were reviewed using the following
three criteria:
a. Environmental Compliance. This means that all borrow sites were
sited on prior-converted farm fields. No borrow sites were located within any
aquatic habitat, forested wetlands, or other undisturbed habitat. No
endangered species or cultural resources would be impacted as a result of the
borrow area. Nor are prime farmlands to be used as potential borrow sites.
b. Suitable quality and sufficient quantity of borrow material. The
District realizes that better quality of borrow material means that the
overall borrow area is smaller. The reverse is also true; poorer quality
translates into a larger borrow area. Additionally, the one-way haul distance
to the construction site should be as short as possible.
27
C. Consent of the property owners to have the borrow area located on
their property. If the property owner did not voluntarily agree to have the
drill crew on their property, that particular site was dropped from any
further consideration.
Based on soil borings done at each of the potential sites and in light of
the above three criteria, it was found that only two of the sites (one on each
side of the AIWW) met the above-mentioned criteria. These same soil borings
indicated that the northern borrow/disposal area should be about 45 acres
(35 acres for the borrow area and 10 acres for the disposal area) and the
southern borrow/disposal area should be about 35 acres (25 acres for the
borrow area and 10 acres for the disposal area) (see Figure 8). The
difference in size is attributable to differences in quantities of usable
material. The two borrow/disposal areas have existing access roads within the
prior-converted farm fields.
A formal alternative analysis for the proposed borrow/disposal sites was
not undertaken because only two sites (i.e., the northern and the southern
borrow/disposal areas) met the three criteria mentioned above. These two
borrow/disposal sites are both located on prior-converted wetlands, which are
currently being farmed. Prior-converted wetlands are designated by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Prior-converted farm
fields were at one time wetlands regulated by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act, but the hydrological parameter has been removed. The significance of
siting the proposed borrow/disposal areas in prior-converted farm fields is
that there will be no impacts to waters or wetlands. These farm fields are
ditched and cleared of any woody vegetation. They are currently supporting
corn and soybeans. The existing access roads are also located within the
prior-converted farm fields. Therefore, there is no loss of wetland habitat
units since no wetlands will be impacted by the borrow/disposal areas, nor
will any aquatic habitat be impacted by the proposed borrow/disposal areas.
Additionally, the one-way haul distance is less than five miles on State-
maintained roads for either of the northern or southern borrow/disposal areas.
Based on the June 15, 1993, field surveys conducted on these sites, it is
not likely that any significant archaeological or historic sites, HTRW, or
endangered species would be affected by use of these borrow/disposal areas.
These sites are located outside of the central residential area of the
Fairfield community. No residences would be affected and the site would not
be visible from the existing primary and secondary roads. A preliminary
assessment screening was conducted for the proposed northern and southern
borrow/disposal areas. The proposed north and south borrow/disposal areas are
located on existing prior-converted wetlands, which are currently being
farmed. The results of these preliminary assessment screenings did not
indicate that any activity had occurred within these areas.
5.2.1 Borrow/Disposal Alternative Dropped from Further Study. The disposal
areas for the Alligator Pungo Land Cut, Range 3, are about 6.5 to 11.8 miles
west of the existing bridge. There are no State maintained roads to or from
these disposal areas. Access roads would be private, unimproved farm roads,
which would have to be upgraded to handle the heavy duty truck traffic. In
addition, the private landowners would have to provide permission before these
private farm roads could be used. After reviewing the Hyde County road maps,
the one-way haul distance from the Alligator Pungo Land Cut, Range 3, to the
construction site (via State-maintained roads) would be about 15 miles. This
alternative was dropped from further consideration because of the haul
distance, which is about three times the distance from the proposed northern
and southern borrow/disposal areas.
28
5.3 COMPARISON OF DETAILED PLANS
In order to evaluate and compare the various plans for bridge and roadway
alignments, a table was developed to display the costs, contributions, and
impacts of each plan. Table 3 presents the data for each alignment.
29
6.0 SELECTED PLAN
This section presents the rationale for plan selection, the major features of
the selected plan (proposed action) for bridge alignment and borrow sites, and
information concerning design and construction.
6.1 RATIONALE
A point-rating system was established to assess the impact of each alignment
on the major factors influencing the selection decision. In general, the
higher the point value, the more favorable the alignment was in satisfying the
concerns surrounding each factor. The point rating varies from 4 (best) to 1
(worst). Table 3 presents the evaluation of the data in terms of alignment
suitability.
6.2 PLAN SELECTION
The results of the plan comparison and evaluation indicate that Alignment 1,
the western alignment, is the best overall for development because of its
superior bridge and highway geometric alignment, limited environmental
impacts, and limited potential for utility relocation delays and preference by
the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). Alignment 1 is,
therefore, the proposed action. The comparative costs for all alignments are
within a 5-percent range which is considered well within the estimating
accuracy at this level of development and does not materially affect decision-
making.
The proposed northern and southern borrow/disposal areas would save site
preparation costs associated with land clearing and dewatering procedures and
have no significant adverse environmental consequences. Both sites are close
to the highway, have existing access roads leading to the site, have a higher
percentage of suitable construction material than the other sites, and would
have no significant environmental impacts. Both sites are prior-converted
wetlands, which are currently in agriculture.
6.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed alignment leaves the present N.C. Highway 94 at a point
approximately 2,220 feet north of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW),
crosses the AIWW approximately 215 feet west of the existing bridge, and
reconnects with the present N.C. Highway 94 approximately 2,555 feet south of
the waterway. The connector road will facilitate local access from the new
road to the bypassed existing portion of the road. The total length of the
alignment is about 6,310 feet (relocated N.C. Highway 94 and connections to
the existing N.C. Highway 94) with approximately 453 feet of approach on the
north side, about 590 feet of approach on the south side, and about 3,714 feet
of bridge. Bridge approaches on each side of the waterway will require the
placement of approximately 90,000 cubic yards of fill. Fill height at the
bridge abutments will be approximately 10 feet on the south side and 12 feet
on the north side of the AIWW with a width of 110 to 150 feet, respectively.
Fill width will taper down as the alignment approaches N.C. Highway 94.
Right-of-way widths will vary from 430 feet at the highest point of the
approach fills to 225 feet at the connections with N.C. Highway 94.
Additional right-of-way will be required for two-lane connector roads and
canal widening at each end of the alignment. The connector roads will
facilitate local access to the new road from the bypassed existing road.
The proposed replacement structure will have a 81- to 83-foot prestressed
concrete girder approach span and a three-span, continuous haunched, steel-
plate girder center navigation section designed to be a two-lane, high-level,
30
fixed-span bridge with a 65-foot vertical clearance over the AIWW. The
navigation span for the three-girder system is 380 feet and the side spans are
240 feet each. This 380-foot navigation span provides an unrestricted
horizontal navigational clearance over the waterway. No bridge pier footings
or fender system will be constructed in the AIWW. The girders are spaced at
12.5 feet on center. The girder depth varies with the depth at the haunches,
over the center bents measuring 15 feet; the depth over the navigation channel
is 7 feet 1 inch; and the depth at the transition bents is 10.5 feet. The 33-
foot, 1-inch wide composite reinforced concrete deck is 9.75 inches thick on
the steel spans and 8.5 inches on the concrete girder spans. Two feet by 10
inches high New Jersey style barrier rails topped with 2 bar metal rail 20
inches high are utilized. Bearings are assumed to be neoprene or teflon pot
bearings. Single pedestal hammerhead bridge bents will be placed atop
concrete footings which will be formed upon a foundation of concrete piles.
Additionally, precast pilings will be installed and a concrete cap will be
formed above any waters/wetlands. The proposed bridge bents and pilings will
both be used in the construction of the replacement structure. A total of 37
bridge bents and piers will be constructed in waters and/or wetlands. No
bridge bents or pilings will be placed in any waters of the AIWW. As noted in
the mitigation section, the bridge bents and pilings (as well as the temporary
construction roads) are authorized by Nationwide Permit No. 15. Plan drawings
for Alignment 1 are included in Appendix H.
The northern 45-acre borrow/disposal area and the southern 35-acre
borrow/disposal area include a borrow area and a disposal area needed to dry
material and to place overburden material removed from the borrow pits and
road alignment that is unsuitable for fill.
Additionally, the proposed plan calls for the removal of the existing
road (N.C. Highway 94) and embankment north of the AIWW after the new bridge
is constructed and completed. The resultant excavated material will be
trucked to the existing disposal area. The removal of the existing northern
road and embankment would result in the restoration of about 2.0 acres of
wetlands. The 2.0 acres of wetlands consist of about 1.6 acres of marsh
(E2EMIP) and about 0.4 acre of a mixture of scrub-shrub/marsh communities
(PSS6/EMIT).
6.4 CONSTRUCTION
Construction of the new bridge is estimated to take 3 years and is presently
scheduled to begin in January 1997. Land for the alignment and
borrow/disposal areas is presently scheduled to be purchased beginning in
December 1995. The existing bridge and roadway will be maintained during the
construction of the new roadway and bridge so that traffic will not be
disrupted. When the new road is completed, the existing bridge, fender
system, and piers will be removed and disposed of (see Section 7.3, Loss of
Existing Bridge). The old roadway will be dead-ended with guardrails on the
south side of the AIWW and the northern roadway will be removed entirely and
replanted.
Bridge construction will begin with clearing and grubbing of the
alignment. This will involve cutting, removing, and disposing of all
vegetation and surface debris (into the approved disposal area). Unsuitable
overburden from .the road alignment and the borrow pit will be disposed of in
the disposal area.
Material will be removed from the borrow area by pan, dragline, or
backhoe and placed in the borrow site right-of-way and allowed to dry before
being hauled to the construction site.
The area under the proposed bridged portion of the alignment or adjacent
to the temporary construction roads will be used as a staging area for
31
construction equipment and materials. Areas on both sides of the AIWW will
probably be used. About 9.9 acres on the north of the AIWW and about 3.7
acres on the south of the AIWW may be used for temporary construction
easements. These areas will be cleaned up, graded, and planted after
construction.
Additionally, 3 to 5 acres within the northern borrow/disposal area may
be used by the contractor for a concrete batch plant. Temporary construction
will include a mobile or portable batch plant brought in by truck and erected
onsite, storage areas for sand, coarse aggregate, cement and other concrete
additives, and temporary structures to house operating equipment and store
some of the materials. Water supply would be provided either from wells or
from the adjacent borrow pond. The contractor will be responsible for
obtaining all required Federal, State and local permits for operating the
concrete batch plant.
The construction contractor will be responsible for erosion and
sedimentation control during construction. Control devices, both temporary
and permanent, will be constructed as necessary. During construction,
measures such as temporary seeding, mulching, matting, slope drains, and silt
ditches and fences may be used to minimize erosion. Areas that have been
cleared will be seeded and mulched. Matting may be used on sloped areas to
stabilize the fill and hold seed in place. Silt fences will be constructed
and installed according to NCDOT criteria. Upon completion of the project,
all areas disturbed by construction shall be permanently seeded and mulched.
6.5 PROJECT EFFECTS
As addressed in earlier portions of this report, the construction of a new
roadway and bridge across the AIWW at Fairfield, the proposed northern and
southern borrow/disposal areas, the temporary construction roads and staging
areas, the mitigation site, and the proposed removal of the northern road and
embankment will have both beneficial and adverse effects on the natural,
cultural, and human environment. The beneficial effects are associated with
safer highway and AIWW use, reduced congestion from traffic delays, greater
highway and waterway efficiency, and the overall reduction of permanent
wetland losses. Adverse effects are associated with the permanent and
temporary loss of wetlands, loss of a structure that is eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places (existing bridge), and the visual
intrusion of a high-rise structure.
6.5.1 Beneficial Effects. The selected bridge and roadway alignment
eliminates the blind curves approaching the bridge in the existing highway and
offers a more direct route across the AIWW. Elimination of the one-lane,
traffic-light-controlled bridge will allow the flow of traffic to be
continuous and reduce unsafe stops and starts on a 55 mph highway. The high-
rise bridge with its 120-foot-wide waterway opening and location in a straight
portion of the AIWW will offer a safer, more direct route for AIWW traffic.
Traffic delays and associated congestion will be greatly reduced by the
proposed bridge replacement. This should be a direct long-term benefit for
the Fairfield community. The new bridge will not likely increase traffic
levels over predicted levels, but will allow the traffic to pass through the
area without stopping.
6.5.2 Adverse Effects.
6.5.2.1 Wetlands. The total permanently affected wetland area to be filled
or excavated as a result of the proposed western bridge alignment is about 1.5
acres of palustrine forested wetlands, 1.3 acre of scrub-shrub wetlands and
1.6 acres of cattail marsh, a total of 4.4 acres. This includes the 0.3 acres
of scrub-shrub wetlands impacted by the construction of the 37 bridge bents.
32
h6'
The proposed plan will reduce the overall wetland loss by 2.0 acres, which
means that about 1.5 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, 0.9 acre of scrub-
shrub wetlands, and 0 acres of cattail marsh will be permanently affected.
Additionally, 2.1 acres of wetlands will be bridged by the proposed western
alignment. In waters found within the adjacent canals off the AIWW,
approximately 1.7 acres of bottom habitat will be filled as a result of
causeway/access road construction and 0.5 acre of water will be spanned by the
bridge. The total wetland acreage temporarily impacted by the construction of
detours is about 0.7 acres. The fill material will consist of approximately
90,000 to 200,000 cubic yards of fine sands to silty clays borrowed from
nearby sources. All of the affected acreages are jurisdictional wetlands
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended. The only losses
that are considered to be significant and will be addressed in the mitigation
section are the 2.4 acres of wetlands that will be permanently filled or
excavated for the following reasons.
a. The impacts to the waters and wetlands by the construction of the
temporary detour/construction roadways are authorized by Nationwide Permit No.
15. Additional information relating to this nationwide permit is found in the
mitigation section. Activities authorized by nationwide permits will not
violate state water quality standards and will be consistent with state
Coastal Zone Management Plans. The project area is not designated as a
primary nursery area or shellfish area, no endangered species or cultural
resources will be adversely impacted by the proposed project, and the AIWW
waters are designated as SC by the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management (NCDEM). During construction, the contractor will make sure that
any fill material is confined to the design boundaries. Additionally, all
temporary construction/detour roads and staging areas will be constructed on
geotextile fabric and removed once all work has been completed.
b. The 1.7 acres of waters (within man-made ditches, not within the
AIWW) to be impacted are not significant since they are not considered by the
North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF) to be primary nursery
areas, Nutrient Sensitive Waters or Outstanding Resource Waters, or shellfish
harvesting areas. The waters of the AIWW in the vicinity of the Fairfield
Bridge are assigned a water quality classification of SC by the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM) (North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR), 1989). SC waters are
suitable for aquatic life propagation and maintenance (including fishing,
fish, and functioning primary nursery areas), wildlife, secondary recreation,
and any other usage except primary recreation or shellfishing for market
purposes (NCDEHNR, 1991). In addition, the proposed northern and southern
borrow/disposal areas will create about 60 acres of water habitat that could
offer valuable aquatic habitat within prior-converted areas.
About 10 acres within the northern and southern borrow sites will be
affected by the placement of overburden material from the alignment and borrow
pit, the placement of fill material for drying (before hauling to the
alignment), construction of internal access roads, and the operation of earth-
moving equipment. The effects are not considered to be significant. The
borrow/disposal sites and entrance roads have been located on lands that are
designated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
as prior-converted wetlands (SCS, 1993). This means that the hydrological
parameter has been removed; and in accordance with Regulatory Guidance Letter
90-07 issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on September 26, 1990 (U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, 1990a), the prior-converted farm fields is not a
wetland and is not regulated pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Material placed on-site from the borrow pits for drying will be removed and
used for fill. Organic overburden that is unsuitable for earth fill, removed
from the pit and bridge alignment, will be placed onsite and graded to
acceptable contours. Material used for construction access roads within the
site will be regraded into existing contours.
33
AA
The effect of the fill is further discussed in a Section 404(b)(1)
(P.L. 95-217) evaluation attached as Appendix E. A Section 404 Public Notice
was circulated concurrent with the circulation of the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, and a Section 401 Water Quality Certificate has been
requested from the State of North Carolina. By memorandum dated October 25,
1993, from Mr. Eric Galamb to Ms. Melba McGee (see Appendix J), the NCDEM
stated that if their concerns are addressed to their satisfaction in the Final
EIS, a 401 Water Quality Certificate for the proposed project can be issued.
The loss of wetlands has been evaluated and found to be in compliance with
Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands. There are no practicable
alternatives that have less impact on wetlands, and all practicable measures
to minimize harm to wetlands have been taken (see the mitigation section for
actions taken to mitigate losses).
On January 21, 1992, the NCDEM issued a Section 401 Water Quality
Certification No. 2667 for Nationwide Permit No. 15, which authorizes the
discharges of dredged or fill material incidental to the construction of
bridges across navigable waters of the United States, including cofferdams,
abutments, foundation seals, piers, and temporary construction and access
fills, provided such discharges have been authorized by the U.S. Coast Guard
as part of the bridge permit. Prior to bridge construction, the District will
obtain a bridge permit (Section 9 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899) from
the U.S. Coast Guard. All general and special conditions of Nationwide Permit
No. 15 will be complied with (see mitigation section).
6.5.2.2 Historic Bridge. The Corps and the North Carolina Division of
Archives and History agree that the existing Fairfield Bridge is eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places (see North Carolina Division of
Archives and History letter in Appendix D). The construction of a new bridge
and removal of the existing bridge are considered to have a significant
adverse effect on the historic structure and are addressed in the mitigation
section. Section 106 consultation will be initiated based on this Final
Environmental Impact Statement.
6.5.2.3 Visual Resources. The major effects of the proposed project result
from the introduction of a highly visible structural element. The high-rise
bridge will tend to dominate views along the waterway in the area south of the
existing bridge, though visibility of the structure will be greatly reduced as
distance increases from the structure. Views up and down the AIWW will be
enhanced since the new bridge eliminates structures from the water which will
open the field of view.
Construction of roadway approaches to a height of 10 feet and the
steepness of the side slopes will introduce a land form that is not consistent
with the low relief of the study area. Its location, however, in an area of
relatively low visibility reduces the significance of this impact.
Architecturally, the proposed bridge design is clean with long, narrow,
vertical and horizontal lines. Although the height of the structure makes it
extremely visible, the rise of the bridge is gradual and at least somewhat
compatible with the existing landform of the area.
The overall effects of the proposed project on visual resources in the
study area are not considered to be significant.
6.5.3 Consistency Determination for North Carolina Coastal Management Plan.
In accordance with the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, and
the approved Coastal Management Program of the State of North Carolina, the
proposed bridge replacement project has been evaluated for consistency with
coastal development policies. The project would cross four areas of
environmental concern, including public trust waters, coastal marsh, estuarine
shoreline, and estuarine waters, but would result in no significant impacts to
34
any of the areas of environmental concern. Bridge piers and footings will not
be located in the waterway. The existing bridge and associated piers and
footings will be removed so there will be no net increase of channel bottom
surface area filled or structures in the water column.
Right-of-way requirements for the proposed project include approximately
80 acres for the borrow/disposal sites, 21.6-acres for road and bridge right-
of-way, 13.6 acres for temporary construction easements, 5.5 or 10 acres for
mitigation, and 3.44 acres for perpetual utility easements. All of the land
involved is designated as rural in the land use plan for Hyde and Tyrrell
Counties (Hyde County, 1985 and Tyrrell County, 1990). The project is
compatible with the counties, needs, goals, and objectives.
The proposed action is consistent with the approved Coastal Management
Program of the State of North Carolina.
6.5.4 Flood Plains. Under Executive Order 11988, Flood Plain Management,
Federal agencies are required to comply with the following four conditions.
a. Avoid development in the flood plain unless it is the only
practicable alternative.
b. Reduce the hazard and risk associated with floods.
C. Minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare.
d. Restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values of the flood
plain.
Other than the no-action alternative, there is no practicable alternative
to development in the base flood plain with a bridge replacement project. As
described in the alternatives section, the no-action alternative was
determined not to be an acceptable solution. The selected alignment minimizes
impacts to the flood plain because of its perpendicular crossing and the use
of 3,714 feet of bridging to cross the flood plain and the AIWW. There should
be no significant increase in flood damage potential as a result of the
project.
6.5.5 Endangered Species. The proposed project is not expected to have an
adverse effect on any of the currently listed endangered, threatened, and
threatened (similarity of appearance) species that were considered for the
study area. The following paragraphs provide the reasons for this conclusion.
Since the habitats at the proposed bridge replacement site do not
approximate oceanic or marine environments, species that have been recorded
from those habitats and from beach and dune areas (i.e., whales and sea
turtles) were not of concern. Besides, low salinity environments cannot
support sea turtles or whales. Since blasting or bridge construction will not
take place within the AIWW, sea turtles and the shortnose sturgeon should not
be affected by the proposed project.
Red-cockaded woodpeckers would not find suitable nesting habitat in these
wetlands, though occasional patches of pine might offer temporary cover and
low quality foraging habitat on a temporary basis only. No cavity trees or
birds were noted during the course of the field work.
Nesting habitat for bald eagles may be found in some of the higher trees
or dead snags of the area, but foraging habitat would be limited to the open
waters of the streams and lakes. Considering the hacking activities for this
species in the vicinity of Lake Mattamuskeet within the last few years, seeing
bald eagles in the vicinity of the proposed project site would not be
considered unusual. Otherwise, these habitat features would not figure
35
significantly into the areas to be impacted by the proposed bridge
construction. No eagles or possible eagle nests were seen during the course
of the field work at the proposed construction site.
Use of the area by Arctic peregrine falcons would be little more than
casual and would most likely be limited to periods of migration for this
species during the fall and spring.
Although uncommon in this geographic area, the American alligator would
find suitable foraging and nesting habitat along the AIWW and the streams and
canals it intersects. Areas in which impacts will be realized should be
surveyed again closer to the time of the bridge construction to ensure that
use by this species is not an important factor.
Field surveys were conducted for sensitive joint-vetch (Aeschynomene
vircTinica). Sensitive joint-vetch was not found at the bridge construction
site and borrow/disposal areas.
No indications of threatened or endangered species were noted during the
course of the field work for the proposed bridge replacement site and proposed
borrow/disposal areas.
6.5.6 Section 122 Effects. Section 122 of the River and Harbor and Flood
Control Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-611) identifies some social, economic, and
environmental effects that must be evaluated. The following paragraphs
present the categories and the anticipated project effects on these
categories.
6.5.6.1 Air Pollution. Because traffic volumes are not predicted to increase
as a result of the project, there should be no significant impacts to air
quality. Temporary increases in exhaust emissions from construction equipment
are expected during the construction period (3 years). The project is in
compliance with Section 176 (c) of the Clean Air Act, as amended. Ms. Treva
Maxwell-Anderson, Environmental Engineer, Air Quality Section, DEM, NCDEHNR,
indicated that air quality at Fairfield, North Carolina is designated as an
attainment area (personal communication, April 13, 1994, Ms. Treva Maxwell-
Anderson, Environmental Engineer, Washington, North Carolina). The State of
North Carolina does have a State Implementation Plan ("SIP") approved or
promulgated under section 110 of the CAA. However, for the following reasons,
a conformity determination is not required:
a. 40 CFR 93.153 (b) of the CFR states, "For Federal actions not covered
by paragraph (a) of this section, a conformity determination is required for
each pollutant where the total of direct and indirect emissions in a
nonattainment or maintenance area (emphasis added by the writer) caused by a
Federal action would equal or exceed any of the rates in paragraphs (b)(1) or
(2) of this section." The area has been designated by the State of North
Carolina as an attainment area.
b. The direct and indirect emissions from the project fall below the
prescribed de minimus levels (40 CFR 93.153(c)(1)) and therefore, no
conformity determination would be required. Construction at the project site
will take approximately three years, but will not be continuous (i.e., 7 days
a week, 24 hours a day). Even though the initial emissions may be slightly
higher because of construction activities, after the bridge is completed, the
direct and indirect emissions will be lower at the site because cars, trucks,
tractors, tugs, and boat traffic will not stop and wait for the bridge to open
or close.
C. The project is located within the jurisdiction for air quality of the
Washington Regional office of the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources. The ambient air quality for Hyde County has
36
been determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effect on
the air quality of this attainment area.
6.5.6.2 Noise Pollution. The use of highway construction equipment and
increased truck traffic will likely not increase noise levels in the Fairfield
community during the 3-year construction period, since the bridge is located
3.7 miles north of the community. Following completion of the project, there
should be no significant difference in noise levels over the without project
conditions.
6.5.6.3 Water Pollution. A temporary increase of siltation in the AIWW is
expected during the construction period. This impact is not expected to be
significant and will not result in long-term negative impacts.
6.5.6.4 Destruction of Man-Made and Natural Resources. Man-made structures
that will be removed include the existing bridge and perhaps the northern
roadway. The proposed project will result in a loss of approximately
4.1 acres of wetlands which will be permanently filled or excavated.
6.5.6.5 Esthetic Resources. The proximity of the proposed bridge to the
existing bridge and roadway makes this alternative moderately compatible with
its surroundings. The high-rise structure will be more visible in the study
area than the existing bridge with a resulting moderate visual impact.
6.5.6.6 Community Cohesion. No significant impacts are expected in community
cohesion as a result of the project. No disruption of the internal traffic
patterns within the community will occur, because the proposed activity is
located 3.7 miles north of Fairfield.
6.5.6.7 Public Facilities and Services. The existing N.C. Highway 94 will be
kept open until the new bridge and roadway are completed, but interruptions
are expected due to the movement of construction equipment. Long-term
benefits are expected as a result of the improved transportation facility.
6.5.6.8 Employment Effects. The only anticipated loss of employment is the
bridge tender position at the existing bridge. Employment opportunities in
the study area will increase during the construction period.
6.5.6.9 Tax and Property Values. Areas purchased for highway right-of-way
will be lost to the county as taxable property. Property values along the
existing N.C. Highway 94 will not likely be affected as a result of traffic
diversion, since no commercial or residential development is adjacent to the
bridge. This impact is not expected to be significant as the properties will
continue to be accessible within the community and from the new roadway.
6.5.6.10 Displacement of People, Businesses, and Farms. No residential areas,
businesses, or active farmland will be affected within the proposed bridge
alignment. Approximately 80 acres of prior-converted wetlands used for farm
production will be used as a source of borrow material for construction of the
approach roadways and for disposal of unsuitable material.
6.5.6.11 Community and Regional Growth. No significant impact is expected on
the opportunities for growth within the community or the region as a result of
the project.
6.5.7 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man's Environment and the
Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity. As described earlier,
there will be both short-term and long-term impacts associated with the
proposed project. Long-term impacts include the permanent filling and
excavation of 4.4 acres of wetlands (which will be mitigated for; see the
mitigation section). Short-term impacts include temporary disruptions
37
associated with construction activities (traffic disruption, air and noise
pollution, and siltation). None of the impacts are judged to be significant
in terms of the long-term productivity of the study area or the region.
6.5.8 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources. Construction
of the proposed project will involve a substantial commitment of money, labor,
and materials. Labor commitments are considered to be a benefit in terms of
short-term employment and increased revenues in the local area. Materials
such as stone, concrete, asphalt, and steel are readily available and will not
adversely affect the existing supply.
Losses associated with wetlands are not considered to be irreversible or
irretrievable. These impacts can be mitigated by replacement if determined to
be significant (see mitigation section).
38
7.0 MITIGATION
The purpose of this section is to describe mitigation considerations for the
loss of significant resources associated with the replacement of Fairfield
Bridge. Mitigation, as defined by the Council on Environmental Quality
guidelines (CEQ 1978), includes avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts,
rectifying impacts (rehabilitation or restoration), reducing or eliminating
impacts over time, and compensation of impacts (replacement). Careful,
multi-disciplinary planning for the proposed bridge replacement project has
incorporated the first two mitigation concepts of avoiding and minimizing
impacts. Development of alternative plans and selection of a preferred
alternative were based in great part on consideration of best value to natural
and cultural resources, community resources, and socio-economic resources.
Significant impacts that cannot be avoided or reduced further through project
planning include the loss of wetlands and the loss of the existing historic
bridge (eligible for the National Register of Historic Places).
The District has worked closely with the U.S. Coast Guard to ensure that
the proposed bridge design would not adversely affect navigation along the
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW). For this reason, the proposed bridge
design has a 65-foot-vertical clearance over the AIWW 90-foot-wide navigation
channel. Before the proposed bridge is constructed, the District will obtain
a bridge (Section 9 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899) permit from the U.S.
Coast Guard. The District will then be eligible for Nationwide Permit No. 15,
"U.S. Coast Guard Approved Bridges." Nationwide Permit No. 15 authorizes "the
discharges of dredged or fill material incidental to the construction of
bridges across navigable waters of the United States, including cofferdams,
abutments, foundation seals, piers, and temporary construction and access
fills provided such discharges have been authorized by the Coast Guard as part
of the bridge permit. It does not authorize causeway and approach fill." On
January 21, 1992, the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
(NCDEM) issued Section 401 Water Quality Certification No. 2667 for Nationwide
Permit No. 15, conditioned as follows:
GENERAL CERTIFICATION CONDITIONS
a. The applicant must receive written concurrence from the NCDEM that
the proposal is certified under the Section 401 Water Quality Certification
Program.
b. Established sediment and erosion control practices will be utilized
to prevent violations of the appropriate turbidity water quality standard
(50 nephelometric turbidity units in streams and rivers not designated as
trout waters by the NCDEM, 25 nephelometric turbidity units in all saltwater
classes and all lakes and reservoirs and 10 nephelometric turbidity units in
trout waters).
c. Measures shall be taken to prevent live or fresh concrete from coming
into contact with waters of the State until the concrete has hardened.
d. Additional site-specific conditions may be added to this
certification in order to ensure compliance with all applicable water quality
and effluent standards.
e. Concurrence from the NCDEM that this certification applies to an
individual project shall expire 3 years from the date of the cover letter from
the NCDEM.
39
STATE CONSISTENCY CONDITIONS
a. If the proposed activity is within the North Carolina coastal area,
the applicant must receive written concurrence from the North Carolina
Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM) that the activity is consistent with
the North Carolina Coastal Management Program.
b. Should all or part of a proposed activity be located within an area
of environmental concern as designated by the North Carolina Coastal Resources
Commission, a Coastal Area Management Act permit is required from the NCDCM.
Should an activity within or potentially affecting an area of environmental
concern be proposed by a Federal agency, a consistency determination pursuant
to 15 CFR 930 must be provided to the North Carolina Division of Coastal
Management at least 90 days before the onset of the proposed activity.
As indicated above, Nationwide Permit No. 15 authorizes the placement of
"cofferdams, abutments, foundation seals, piers, and temporary construction
and access fills" in waters -nd wetlands in order to construct a Coast Guard
approved bridge. Temporary construction fills (staging areas), the temporary
detour/construction roadways in wetlands (0.7 acres of wetlands filled, see
section 5.1), and the placement of pilings in the man-made ditches will not
have significant long-term impacts. Impacts to wetlands under the elevated
bridge structure are expected to be minor and no habitat fragmentation is
expected to occur. The Chief of Engineers has prepared environmental
documentation for each of the nationwide permits, which includes an
environmental assessment and a Section 404(b)(1) analysis (where applicable).
The temporary detour/construction fill roadways in wetlands will be
constructed on geotextile fabric. Once all construction activity is complete,
the fill material and the geotextile fabric will be removed and trucked to the
proposed borrow/disposal area. It has been the District's experience, as well
as that of the North Carolina Department of Transportation, that the effects
to the wetlands by these temporary roads are minor and that the wetlands
revegetate very quickly. If the wetlands fail to revegetate within one
growing season from the date the roadway is removed, the District will replant
the area.
In addition, 1.7 acres of water within the adjacent man-made roadside
ditches will be filled as a result of the bridge replacement, but these
impacts are minor since:
a. These waters within the man-made ditches are 10 to 15 feet deep, have
been designated SC waters by the NCDEM (NCDNRCD, 1989), are not considered as
Nutrient Sensitive Waters or Outstanding Resource Waters (NCDEHNR, 1991), or
have not been designated as a primary nursery area (NCDEHNR, 1989), (see the
aquatic resource section on the previous page). This portion of the AIWW and
the northwest and southeast ditches are not closed to shellfishing, but
because of the large amount of freshwater, oyster and clam populations are
small or nonexistent. Even though the two man-made ditches on the northwest
and the southeast are connected to the AIWW, the man-made ditch on the
southwest side of N.C. Highway 94 is not connected to the AIWW or any other
adjacent waterbody.
b. The proposed 35-acre borrow area north of the project and the
proposed 25-acre borrow area south of the project will create approximately 60
acres of aquatic habitat.
C. During construction, the contractor will make sure that when any fill
material is placed in these man-made ditches adequate measures will be used to
make sure the fill material is confined to the design boundaries.
40
The removal of the existing northern road and embankment would result in
the restoration of 2.0 acres of wetlands. The 2.0 acres of wetlands consist
of about 1.6 acres of marsh (E2EMIP) and about 0.4 acre of a mixture of scrub-
shrub/marsh communities (PSS6/EMIT). Therefore, the net effect of the project
is that 2.4 acres of wetlands would be permanently filled or excavated.
7.1 DISPLACEMENT OF RESIDENCES
There will be no displacement of homes as a result of the proposed activity.
In order to help mitigate for any property losses, all affected landowners
will be paid fair market values for their property from the Corps of
Engineers.
7.2 LOSS OF WETLANDS
The selection of the western alignment and the northern and southern
borrow/disposal sites has, to a great extent, limited impacts to significant
wetlands. Because of the preponderance of wetlands in the study area,
however, some degree of impact to these resources is unavoidable. The Corps
has coordinated the evaluation of impacts and the development of mitigation
measures with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). In developing
mitigation measures, it was recognized that when the project was initially
authorized by Congress in 1971 mitigation was not included. However, changes
in laws, policies, and guidance since project authorization now require
stricter guidelines for the consideration of wetland losses and provide
authority for post-authorization mitigation.
Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, requires that Federal
Agencies avoid impacts to wetlands unless there are no practicable
alternatives. It further requires that Federal agencies minimize losses to
the beneficial values of wetlands and preserve and enhance the beneficial
values of wetlands. The Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-
645) promotes the conservation of wetlands through management and wetland
acquisition. Section 906(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(P.L. 99-662) gives the authority to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
approve post-authorization mitigation (including land acquisition). The Act
under Section 906(d) requires that impacts to bottomland hardwoods be
mitigated in-kind, to the extent possible.
The loss of 2.4 acres of wetlands associated with the bridge replacement
is a significant loss and requires the development of a mitigation plan. The
objective is to replace, as completely as possible, the wetland values lost,
with in-kind replacement being the preferred alternative. Appendix C presents
a description of the alternatives, alternative evaluation, and the recommended
plan.
7.2.1 Mitigation Alternatives. Three mitigation alternatives were evaluated
for the proposed Fairfield Bridge Replacement to determine mitigation acres
required to replace habitat units lost due to project construction as shown in
Appendix C. These included: (1) the creation of forested, scrub-shrub, and
marsh wetlands on farmed uplands; (2) the creation of forested, scrub-shrub,
and marsh wetlands on prior-converted wetlands; and (3) the restoration of
forested, scrub-shrub, and marsh wetlands on a degraded wetland site.
In developing and evaluating alternatives, careful attention was given to
the location of lands relative to the proposed alignment and adjacent
properties. All lands directly adjacent to the proposed bridge alignment are
wetlands. Other than the existing highway, there are no uplands, prior-
converted wetlands, or disturbed wetlands adjacent to the proposed bridge
alignment. Location of mitigation lands adjacent to other parcels of wetlands
or forested habitat increases its overall value as a contiguous wetland
complex and avoids creation of isolated wetland parcels. Additionally, the
41
District will make sure that any proposed mitigation lands are adjacent to
and contiguous with the Alligator River and the USFWS, Pocosin Lakes Refuge.
Any lands that will be used for mitigation for the proposed Fairfield Bridge
Replacement will be transferred to the NCDOT and ultimately may be transferred
to the USFWS, Pocosin Lakes Refuge.
7.2.2 Alternative Evaluation. The mitigation alternatives were evaluated to
determine the most cost effective approach for satisfying the mitigation
objective. As part of the evaluation, each alternative was applied to each of
the existing relative habitat values to determine the acreage and cost
requirements for each type of land considered. Figure 6 presents the
evaluation of mitigation alternatives and presents a cost comparison of the
mitigation measures taken from Appendix C.
The restoration of wetlands on prior-converted wetlands is the least
costly alternative and is the proposed mitigation plan and was further
explored for parcels that could be purchased (see Appendix C). The proposed
mitigation plan would require the restoration of any past efforts to drain the
prior-converted wetlands. This would be primarily accomplished through
filling or blocking of drainage ditches. The area would be revegetated with
similar species, which have been impacted by the proposed project. In order
to mitigate the 2.4 acres of wetlands impacted, the District has decided to
purchase a 5.5 acre prior-converted farm field off N.C. Highway SR 1322, in
the Kilkenny area, Tyrrell County (see Figure 9). If this area is not
available, about 100 acres of prior-converted farm fields located between N.C.
Highway 94 and the Alligator River would provide suitable alternative sites.
The above mitigation evaluation is based on the fact that the existing
northern roadway and causeway could be removed once all construction is
complete. Before the northern roadway/causeway can be removed, the District
will need to either purchase all adjacent properties or pay damages. The
Uniform Relocation Assistance Act (P.L. 91-646), as well as State statute,
requires that the Corps maintain access to privately owned lands adjacent to
the project site where access has been provided in the past unless appropriate
compensation has been made to the property owner.
If the District cannot economically purchase or pay damages for all
adjacent properties, then the existing northern roadbed cannot be removed to
the surrounding wetland elevation and contour. This would mean that the 2.0
acres of existing northern roadbed will not be removed, which means that an
additional 2.0 acres of wetlands will need to be mitigated (see Appendix C).
A total of 4.4 acres of wetlands (2.0 + 2.4 = 4.4) would have to
mitigated. If this is the case, the District will purchase a 10-acre prior-
converted tract instead of a 5.5-acre prior-converted tract near Kilkenny (see
Figure 9). If this area is not available, about 100 acres of prior-converted
wetlands are located between N.C. Highway 94 and the Alligator River that
would provide suitable alternative sites.
7.2.3 Mitigation Plan. The mitigation plan will consist of the following
general design considerations:
a. General site management would result in-the development of at least
5.5 or 10 acres of palustrine forested/scrub-shrub wetlands. Inclusions
of estuarine scrub-shrub or emergent marsh are acceptable.
b. Soil disturbance would be kept to a minimum to avoid stimulating weed
generation.
C. Flashboard risers will be placed in the existing ditches to restore
the hydrologic parameter to the PC farmfield. Installation of monitoring
wells or alternative hydrology monitoring would be initiated at the site.
42
d. Species to be planted would include a variety of broad- or needle-
leaved deciduous trees and shrub seedlings native to the area. The plant
source would not be located in excess of 200 miles north or south of
Fairfield, North Carolina. Mast (wildlife food) producers would be
preferentially selected; however, no more than 20 percent of the
plantings would be of any 1 species.
e. Materials would be planted at a minimum of 320 trees/acre .
f. Monitoring would be conducted annually for a minimum of 3 years or
until the success criteria are met.
g. The site will be considered successful if at the end of 3 years it
has achieved saturation of the soil column within 12 inches of the
surface, ponded, or flooded at least 12.5 % of the growing season under
reasonably average climatic conditions and a minimum survival of 320
trees/acre. Inclusions of emergent marsh or scrub-shrub wetlands are
acceptable and will not be subtracted from the goal, with the exception
of any portion that occupies more than 50 percent of the total area.
A detailed mitigation plan, including specific site determinations,
planting plans, and monitoring will be developed during preparation of plans
and specifications.
7.3 LOSS OF EXISTING BRIDGE
The existing bridge is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
In anticipation of a determination that the proposed action will have an
adverse effect, three alternative treatments of the property have been
analyzed. These alternatives include preservation in place, moving the
property to another location, and Historic American Engineering Record
photodocumentation of the property followed by razing the structure.
In-place preservation of the Fairfield Bridge is not a feasible or
prudent alternative. Leaving the existing bridge in place after construction
of the new bridge would present a hazard to navigation and would not allow for
the efficient use of the waterway. If the bridge is left in place, it would
have to be left in the open position which would present a hazard to
navigation and would preclude its use for any adaptive purpose. The removal
of the existing bridge and replacement with a high-rise structure was
authorized by Congress to eliminate continued Federal involvement in
maintenance and operation of AIWW bridges. In order to leave the existing
bridge in place, a congressional reauthorization of the project would be
required. Based on these considerations, in-place preservation of the
Fairfield Bridge is not recommended.
Moving the bridge to any other location on the AIWW would present the
same problems to a greater or lesser degree as those presented for in-place
preservation. In addition, under the present authorization, reuse of the
bridge on the AIWW could only be accomplished without future Federal
participation in the operation and maintenance of the structure. Moving the
bridge away from Fairfield and the AIWW would disassociate the bridge from its
historical context and the community which it influenced. This alternative is
not recommended based on the problems of removing the bridge from its
historical context, its continued impediment to navigation if moved elsewhere
on the AIWW, the restriction of Federal participation in future operation and
maintenance, and the expense of documenting and moving the bridge.
Completion of Historic American Engineering Record photographic
documentation for the Fairfield Bridge is the recommended alternative. The
bridge as it stands is a hazard to navigation and should be removed. In
addition, the nature and requirements of the project authorization, the
43
difficulty in adaptively reusing the bridge, and the inappropriateness of
removing the bridge from the AIWW to another waterway contribute to this
recommendation. This alternative will be reviewed by the North Carolina State
Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation. A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) will be concluded based on this
treatment for the bridge. The MOA may require Historic American Engineering
Record documentation for the Fairfield Bridge which would consist of (1)
reproduction of the construction blueprints on acid-free, archivally stable
mylar film; (2) taking photographs of the upstream and downstream faces of the
bridge, both road approaches, bridge deck, bridge machinery, and a full cycle
of bridge operation on archivally stable, black and white photographic film
(4- by 5-inch format); and (3) provision of an engineering description of the
bridge. Historic American Engineering Record will also review the MOA. Upon
completion and acceptance of this documentation, the existing Fairfield Bridge
can be removed from the AIWW.
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) presented the information
to initiate consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966. Consulting parties in this matter are the North
Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District.
Based on comments received as a result of review of the DEIS, which presents
the proposed mitigation plan for the removal of the Fairfield Bridge, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District will prepare a draft MOA. This
MOA will be developed between the Wilmington District, the North Carolina
State Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation.
7.4 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
The following list is a summary of environmental commitments related to the
replacement of the existing Fairfield Bridge. These commitments address
agreements made with State agencies, mitigation measures, and construction
practices.
a. The existing bridge will be made available to the State of North
Carolina (if desired by the State) for use in the Artificial Reef Program.
b. Either 5.5 or 10 acres of land will be purchased for mitigation (see
discussion in Section 7.2.2). A detailed mitigation plan including specific
site determinations, planting plans, and monitoring will be developed during
preparation of plans and specifications. Purchase and site preparation of
these mitigation lands will take place either before or concurrent with the
proposed bridge construction.
C. All temporary fills will be constructed on geotextile fabric. Once
construction is complete, all fill material will be removed and the geotextile
fabric will be taken up and placed in the approved disposal areas. The
temporarily disturbed areas will revegetate naturally. If after one growing
season the natural vegetation has failed to revegetate the disturbed wetlands,
the Corps will replant the area.
d. Any asbestos-containing material found in the structures to be
removed will be disposed of in an Environmental Protection Agency approved
disposal site.
e. Appropriate erosion and sedimentation control measures will be
applied during construction.
f. The District will comply with all general and specific conditions of
Nationwide Permit No. 15 for U.S. Coast Guard Approved Bridges.
44
8.0 COORDINATION
Coordination on the proposed project has been performed in two stages
over a period of 20 years. Replacement of the Fairfield Bridge was originally
authorized by Section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1970, along with four
other AIWW bridges in North Carolina, dependent on the State of North Carolina
contributing 25 percent of the actual first cost and accepting maintenance of
the bridge following construction. Full coordination with all applicable
Federal, State, and local agencies occurred during the planning and
authorization stages. The U.S. Coast Guard has been a cooperating agency in
this process.
The project was reauthorized for 100-percent Federal funding of first
costs by Section 601 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(P.L. 99-662), and final planning and design under the new authorization was
begun in 1988. The Notice of Intent to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Fairfield Bridge Replacement appeared in the
Federal Register on June 9, 1992 (Vol.57, No. 111). Coordination for this
effort has included one public mailing. All applicable Federal, State, and
local agencies and affected public were contacted. The first mailing on
June 25, 1992, initiated the study and requested information on resources and
issues that should be considered in the planning process. In addition to the
mailing, a meeting was convened on October 27, 1992, between representatives
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), and the North Carolina Nature
Conservancy. The purpose of this meeting was to provide copies of the latest
bridge alignment alternatives and to discuss the environmental impacts of the
proposed bridge replacement.
Copies of the scoping letters and comments from interested-agencies and
public on the scoping letters are included in Appendix I.
A DEIS was filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on
September 24, 1993, and was circulated for a 45-day public review period
ending November 8, 1993.
8.1 LIST OF RECIPIENTS
The following agencies and individuals were sent a copy of the scoping
letter and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
Agencies and Interest Groups
Federal Agencies
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Center of Disease Control, Center for Environmental Health
Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District
Federal Highway Administration
Fifth Coast Guard District
National Marine Fisheries Service, Habitat Conservation
Division, Beaufort Marine Fisheries Center
National Park Service, Southeast Regional Office, Archaeology
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Area Director
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, State
Conservationist
U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, Ecology and Environmental
Conservation Office
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Compliance
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
45
U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Environmental Affairs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal
Activities, EIS Filing Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Environmental
Policy Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Regional
Administrator
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville Field Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Field Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
State Agencies
N.C. State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Environment, Health,
Division of Coastal Management
N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries
N.C. Office of Water Resources
N.C. Department of Transportation
N.C. National Estuarine Research Reserve
N.C.. Sea Grant Program, Fort Fisher
N.C. State Historic Preservation Officer
N.C. State Port Authority
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Local Agencies
Cape Hatteras National
Area Conservationist,
Hyde County, District
Postmasters
Conservation Groups
and Natural Resources,
Seashore
Soil Conservation Service
Conservationist
Conservation Council of North Carolina
Izaac Walton League
National Audubon Society
National Wildlife Federation
Nature Conservancy, N.C. Chapter
N.C. Coastal Federation
N.C. Environmental Defense Fund
N.C. Wildlife Federation
Sierra Club
Libraries
(Mr. Sam Pearsall)
Duke University Library
Librarian, N.C. Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources
County Law Library
County Library
North Carolina Maritime Museum
North Carolina State Library
UNC-Wilmington Library
UNC-Chapel Hill Library
Elected officials
Hyde and Tyrrell Counties,
Honorable Abbott N. Sawyer
Honorable Lauch Faircloth,
Honorable Howard B. Chapin
Boards of Commissioners
United States Senate
46
Honorable Jesse Helms, United States Senate
Honorable Charles G. Rose
Honorable A. W. Jarman
Honorable William T. Culpepper III
Interested Businesses, Groups, and Individuals
Mr. Ed Armstrong
Ms. Margit Bucher
Mr. James B. McNullan
Mr. Robert J. Rich
Mr. Lee Knott
Mr. William D. Rich
Mr. Chestley Hudson
Ms. Eva Hudson
Mr. Harry M. Dewitt, Jr.
Ms. Kate Dunn Barrow
Mr. Charlie G. Sexton
Mr. Macon G. Sexton
Ms. Edna Sexton Cahoon
Mr. Allen W. Ballance
Mr. James B. McMullan
Ms. Martha Spencer
Mr. Flave F. Spencer III
Ms. Ann Spencer
Mr. Thomas Edison
Ms. Julia J. Cahoon
Mr. Thomas E. Cahoon
Mr. Jim Savery
Mr. John Davis
Ms. Angella R. Jordan
Mr. R.L. Gibbs
Mr. David Bischoff
Mr. Keith Ballance
Ms. Carolyn Gibbs Nicolson
John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance
Cargill Incorporated
Lakeway Fuels Incorporation
Northlake Farms
Ms. Dawn Berry Gibbs
Company
47
8.2 RESPONSE TO U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE COMMENTS
The USFWS provided a list of project related recommendations enclosed within
their Final Fish and Wildlife Coordination Report (Appendix F). The following
paragraphs present the Service's recommendations regarding the Fairfield
Bridge Replacement Study found within the Final Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act Report. The Corps of Engineers response to each is also provided.
Further, the USFWS believes that the following recommendations should be
incorporated and made a part of project plans to minimize potential adverse
environmental impacts to fish and wildlife and their habitat.
1. USFWS Recommendation. The Service recommends that the selected alignment
have the least impact on wetlands in the project area. The selected alignment
should also produce the minimal amount of habitat fragmentation. This could
be achieved by placing the new alignment as close as possible to the existing
alignment.
Corps Response. Construction of a new roadway and bridge as close as
possible to the existing bridge or the choice of a center alignment would
involve using the existing road as a work platform. It would require the
closure of N.C. Highway 94 for the construction period of the bridge due to
the work area required for cranes to place the girders, for storage of
equipment and materials, and for workman and public safety. Rerouting traffic
during the approximate 3-year construction period is impractical and cost
prohibitive since it would require a 100-mile, one-way detour to go from one
side of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) to the other side.
On October 27, 1992, a meeting was convened between representatives from
the USACE and the USFWS, NCWRC, (NCDOT), and the North Carolina Nature
Conservancy. It was our understanding that if a center alignment was not
practical, that an alignment as close as possible to the existing bridge
should be chosen. As indicated above, the District has chosen the western
alignment as the selected plan (proposed action). At the time of the
October 27, 1992, meeting the western alignment was about 460 feet west of the
existing bridge. In the Fairfield Bridge Replacement Alignment Study dated
March 1993, the western alignment was about 312 feet west of the existing
bridge. Currently, the proposed western alignment is about 215 west of he
existing bridge. As you can see, the Corps has gotten the proposed western
alignment about 245 feet closer to the existing bridge, without adverse
impacts to waters and wetlands.
2. USFWS Recommendation. During construction, all necessary measures should
be taken to prevent any increase in erosion and the flow of sediment into
nearby wetlands and waterways. if an onsite concrete batch plant is required,
containment ditches and/or settling ponds should be used to prevent the large
amounts of water runoff from causing erosion and increasing sediment
discharge.
Corps Response. If a concrete batch plant is constructed within the
northern borrow/disposal area, the contractor will be responsible for
obtaining all required permits. These permits would be:
a. Runoff produced either by cleaning the equipment or as process
wastewater will be regulated by the issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 permit. Air
emissions from the portable concrete batch plant will be regulated by an Air
Quality Permit (G.S. 143-215-108). Both of these permits will be issued and
monitored by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management,
Washington Field Office.
48
b. Before any land disturbing activities occur at the batch plant site,
an erosion and sedimentation control permit must be obtained from the North
Carolina Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section. During
construction the Land Quality Section will make periodic site inspections.
Penalty is a notice of violation with potential shutdown.
3. IISFWS Recommendation. After construction, all temporary construction
sites should be restored to their pre-construction condition. Part of this
effort should include restoring natural contours, contouring the bottom of
excavated sites to create depressions similar to those naturally occurring in
the area, and reseeding exposed ground with plant species suitable for the
area.
Corps Response. Section 7.4, Environmental Commitments, paragraph c,
states that "All temporary fills will be constructed on geotextile fabric.
Once construction is complete, all fill material will be removed and the
geotextile fabric will be taken up and placed in the approved disposal areas.
The temporarily disturbed areas will revegetate naturally. If after one
growing season the natural vegetation has failed to revegetate the disturbed
wetlands, the Corps will replant the area."
4. IISFWS Recommendation. The Service considers the wetlands in the project
area to have a high value for fish and wildlife resources. These areas
constitute Resource Category 2 habitats, and the Service recommends that
replacement be on an in-kind, habitat value basis. If the Corps proposes to
mitigate out-of-kind, the Final Environmental Impact Statement should fully
justify and present the rationale for such action.
Corps Response. As indicated within the mitigation section (see section
7.0), the Corps will mitigate for all significant wetland impacts by in-kind
replacement.
5. IISFWS Recommendation. Mitigation site(s) should be located as close to
the project site as possible. The Corps has proposed replacing unavoidable
wetland losses by restoring prior-converted agricultural fields north of the
project site near Kilkenny or similar farm fields between N.C. Highway 94 and
Alligator River. Both areas are in the ecoregion of the project and are
acceptable to the Service.
Corps Response. Noted.
6. IISFWS Recommendation. The Corps should acquire or otherwise permanently
protect for conservation purposes all mitigation sites. The sites should be
protected in perpetuity through donation or easement to the North Carolina
Nature Conservancy, Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, or the NCWRC.
Corps Response. Any lands that will be used for mitigation for the
proposed Fairfield Bridge Replacement will be transferred to the NCDOT and
ultimately may be transferred to the IISFWS, Pocosin Lakes Refuge.
7. USFWS Recommendation. The production of replacement wetlands should be
based on a detailed mitigation plan developed by the Corps. This plan should
contain: (1) both short-term and long-term success criteria for biotic and
abiotic elements of the desired habitat with a schedule for the accomplishment
of each criteria, (2) a monitoring program to periodically evaluate progress
toward the fulfillment of success criteria, and (3) a contingency plan which
gives the procedures to be followed in the event that success criteria are not
accomplished. This plan should be submitted to the Service and other Federal
and State regulatory-review agencies for review and approval.
Corps Response. Section 7.4, Environmental Commitments, paragraph b,
states, "Either 5.5 or 10 acres of land will be purchased for mitigation (see
49
discussion in Section 7.2.3). The detailed mitigation plan including specific
site determinations, planting plans, and monitoring plan will be developed
during preparation of plans and specifications. Purchase and site preparation
of these mitigation lands will take place either before or concurrent with the
proposed bridge construction."
8. USFWS Recommendation. The Corps should explore ways of disposing of the
old bridge in a manner which will enhance fisheries resources. One way to
achieve this enhancement would be to donate the old structure to the State of
North Carolina for use as an artificial reef.
Corps Response. Section 7.4, Environmental Commitments, paragraph a.
The existing bridge will be made available to the State of North Carolina (if
desired by the State) for use in the Artificial Reef Program.
50
9.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
The following people provided major support in the development and
preparation of this environmental impact statement.
NAME (DEIS Role) EXPERTISE EXPERIENCE DISCIPLINE
Coleman Long Env. Impact
(Supervisor of Assessment
DEIS Preparation)
2 yrs., Chief
Env. Resources
Branch, 4 yrs.,
Asst Chief, Env.
Resources Branch,
6.5 yrs., Chief,
Environmental
Analysis Section,
Wilmington District.
4 yrs., Env.
Resources Branch,
Wilmington District.
2 yrs., Master
Planning Branch,
Wilmington District.
Landscape
Architect
Anne Goodwin Project 7 yrs., Project
Manager Management Division
Wilmington District
2 yrs., U.S. Navy
Greg Griffith Structural/ 17 yrs., Structural
(Project engineer, Civil Engineering Engr. Branch,
bridge design) Wilmington District.
3 yrs., civil engr.
instructor, U.S. Army
Engineer School.
Richard Lewis Archaeology 12.5 yrs., Env.
Archaeologist Resources Branch,
Wilmington District.
2 yrs., Env. Resources
Branch, Buffalo
District. 2 yrs., Env.
Resources Section,
Rock Island District.
Karen Warr Fish and Wildlife 2 yrs., FWS, Raleigh
(FWS biologist, Biology Field office.
FWS Coordination Act
Report)
Gene Riddle Civil Engineering 21 yrs., Design
(Highway alignment Branch,
and design) Wilmington District.
Civil Engineer
Civil Engineer
Biologist
Civil Engineer
Hugh Heine DEIS Preparer 2.5 year Env. Biologist
Resources Branch,
13 years Regulatory
Branch, Wilmington
District.
51
REFERENCES
Council of Environmental Quality. 1978. Regulations for Implementing the
Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1500-
1508).
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification
of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Prepared for the
Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of
Interior, Washington, D.C.
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Tyrrell County, North Carolina.
1985. Flood Insurance Rate Map for
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
County, North Carolina.
1992. Flood Insurance Rate Map for Hyde
Frayer, W.E., T.J. Monahan, D.C. Bowden and F.A. Graybill. 1983. Status and
Trends of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats in the Coterminous United States:
1950's to 1970's. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington D.C.
Hozier; Paul E. and James F. Parnell. 1979. Aquatic Resources Associated
with the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Wilmington District, North
Carolina. University of North Carolina at Wilmington.
Hyde County. 1985. Hyde County Land Use Plan. Prepared for Hyde County
Board of Commissioners by Neuse River Council of Governments.
LeBlond, R. 1992. Survey and Inventory of the Alligator River Preserve, Hyde
County, North Carolina. Report to the N.C. Nature Conservancy, Carrboro,
North Carolina. 22pp.
Lee, David S., Carter R. Gilbert, Charles H. Hocutt, Robert E. Jenkins, Don E.
McAllister, and Jay R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980. Atlas of North American
Freshwater Fishes. Publication No. 1980-12 of the North Carolina Biological
Survey. 854 pp.
Lee, David S., John B. Funderburg, Jr., and Mary K. Clark. 1982. A
Distribution Survey of North Carolina Mammals. Occasional Papers of the
North Carolina Biological Survey 1982-10. 71 pp.
LeGrand, Jr., H. E., C. C. Frost, and J. O. Fussell, III. 1992.
Regional Inventory for Critical Natural Areas, Wetland Ecosystems, and
Endangered Species Ha'Atats of the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Region:
Phase II. A/P Study Project Report No. 92-07. 506pp.
N.C. Division of Environmental Management. 1985. Assessment of
Surface Water Quality in North Carolina. Report No. 85-01.
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
1989. Division of Marine Fisheries. Nomination of Specific Inland Waters
for Primary Nursery Area Designation.
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 1991.
Division of Environmental Management. Administration Code 15 NCAC 2B .0200
- Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters
of North Carolina.
52
N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development. 1985.
Division of Environmental Management. Administrative Code 15 NCAC 2B .0316
- Classifications and Water Quality Standards Assigned to the Waters of the
Tar-Pamlico River Basin.
Smith, William B. and W. Donald Baker. 1965. Appendices to the Survey and
Classification of the Alligator-Scuppernong Rivers and Tributaries, North
Carolina. Page A-3.
Tyrrell County. 1990. Tyrrell County Land Use Plan. Prepared for Tyrrell
County by Ken Weeden & Associates - Planning Consultants.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Planning Aid Report on the
Fairfield Bridge Replacement Study.
U.S. Soil Conservation Service. 1988. Soil Survey of Tyrrell County, North
Carolina.
Water Resources Council. 1983. Economic and Environmental Principles and
Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation.
53
INDEX
Affected Environment, Section 3.2
Assessment of Detailed Plans, Section 5.0
Authority, Section 2.1
Coastal Zone Resources, Section 6.5.3
Comparison of Plans, Section 5.3
Construction, Section 6.4
Description of Alternatives, Section 4.2
Endangered Species, Section 3.2.11
Flood Plains, Section 3.2.9
Future Conditions, Section 3.3
FWS Recommendations, Section 8.2
Mitigation, Section 7.0
Plan Formulation, Section 4.1
Problem Identification, Section 3.0
Problems, Needs, and Opportunities, Section 3.4
Project Effects, Section 6.5
Project Purpose, Section 2.2
Selected Plan, Section 6.0
Study Process, Section 2.3
Wetland Losses, Section 6.5.2.1
54
(n
Z
W
2
Z
O
J
Q
W
0
C13
W
H
Q
Z
Cr
w
J
Q
Cn
F-
U
w
LL
LL
w
J
Q
H
Z
w
2
Z
O
cc
7
Z
w
w
C?
CL
m
O
J
w
U-
Q
tL
N
w
J
C13
H
1
I I
I I I
w I LC) 1 I LC)
J i 1 1 r
U I
m w
m
?
Ln
CD

M
U i m 0 0 O O

ul co
-
I
LU

>
?w-
a

I

a)
m

o
Q Iw J J O J
cr. I > 1 Ci 1 Tt / A
1
W

J
I V 1 0 1 Q / Q
i X
Q 1 w

i

I
1
1
0
N
M

C J
Q
Z
N

i
1
1

i
1
1
I
1
N
Q i a N 1 I 1 1 1
o U
O
0 I
o w 1
I
o
to !'" cc !0 0 ? 0 O M
3
C) a co J
o J J
w
CV V

O
W ~ CY)
Q

X

i t
O

1
0

1

O
Z

u w
W
1 L7 d M
a LL I o I I N In
Lo C'7 O C"') Ln
m (0 0 0 0 O N
a
w
m
Q
LL,
!

j

N

i

I Up

I

C>D

I?

3

m

;
? W U r- 0 O - O J I J O J
H U
w

J 1 i I
Q J LC) ; N 1? LA
LL (? ' N O LA

I
N Ln C'7

I Un CO
IO •- O O O N
r co

F Z
>
1 O
Ci

1
I?
1

c

I

c .m.

m

c
Q W ¢ 0 O ? 1 IO i I ? i .
00 J I I J o i
w 3 W I

~
! I
Q J Ir I\ N ILo ^ CR
LL !0 o ? ?o l I ? I

U
y I
I I I (
I y
m
0
m
C

_O

y
l y C
co
y
l
Q
<
U
Q
y
y C
m
?
y

J m C
m m
3: m
m 0
N
a>' N
'- m O
d `
U C
J

O
V)
i 0
d
L

'
`

0 .•
O
x
U H
V .O
70
w
O
m

C
l0
. W I
I L
N L
N t
li Z J CL y <O
C c N
- O U ` L 7

N W
`-
y -6 L
? .6
7 K
U [L' .U V
O V E V
'
> f
..
w j
i LL 7
U) c
L
(n
j co
co
I J
I p
a
I O
y C
J N
>
V m
CC O
() O
U 07
Q
{
j
1 I Q (n
W W F- 1 1 i Q N U
55
m M
_
cd
W O
O C
O C
CA M N V' st N CC)
M
? a
W cc
c
r
' M
t0
?
?
N
N
N
'ct
?
'd
M LL ? ci O
a
t
W
3
?„ M
C N
?
rn
CO
a
co
N
O
r
?

m a

a rn N o v 'O fO n w
m
a
t
CA ? N r et M N of

v
m M
C r r r [t N N V
LLJ o U
a
c
r M
C $ > C> N N M + r O
W v a

c m
c N
Cl)
CO
N
co
M

rn
CD U a.
c
W
a

2) v ?r v ? v
N
a
M

c
8
O
O ?

p
O

8 O
S
?
m i0 y h
C\l W
W M 8
00
OD 0
0 O _O h t0 3 N D) N CO N

'
ca O O C C (D
O M N W M r N O ?
p M co
J
?t
O
CV
fV
N
C
W r U O 7 M t
M c
D
N c
0
N CO co
M
N
l a N

r co

c

`

g

0

o

^

?

3

o

n

at

o

o

?
_
m

E
W OO
In CO co f. t? NN M M p
J CJ O CJ CV a
U M co N N tt„ LV) T
E 8 CV
N ? .
p?
m N
c
8 pp p p
o

C m

co ?Rp O

CO c
p ;;

0)
3

O
.-
O
O
N
N
O

U

'

M M i0 U)
M co
co
J ri O co O CV ?
N C
U W co co co M N N co c? M CV
a CV
v
am-..
m
o)
U o0
?
8 op
N 0
M o
$
p in
N
rn
0
I.
N
N
P
O N O m ? ON O t? O N W OD N M J .= CV c0 N C_
> W
C N M C
N p
N i
O
c0 M co
N
a
C

a N
0 C
a)

O
V)
m

co ^ O

v _

C
O N W m CO .-. ^ J. D
m S CP O m as N ;
C y
0 '-' m C m m
m io p
S v m

W V
co y
m
it N m

? cc Q
O
c6
C
y O -p W O E C U v 6 n v ) O
QC U 00 i6 0 O C O ' c0 co .L] d *j = E = 4/
U > m O
o
c W O m
' 06
o m
o - C
m = 7
z O 7 N.
Z m
° O .? O
d
co ? m W 2 o c c C g z w g F.
fd L 3 L m
? co
O a s
N L L 7
E L rn
m O
J `
O co
E
a 'O S W "
- OJ
.- 'p C W W
c E N 7 .N.. 7 iC O y O

j E m o m ?c7 m o o CL m i
a o c i u c i °- z ?'a o U
1 o f CL J co U .J Cn a U F- U J J U W t i F Z U Z N
I -
CO)
C7
z
Q
F-
z
W
2
z
c?
J
Q
Co
W
J
to
Q
H
56
co
U
O
a
a
3
N
m
L_
W
C
a
m
m
a
.3
m
t
F
CE
W
m
c
m
d
m
O
v
m
co
.a
N
U
ca
y
N
L
W
C
m
m
W
.t7
C
C
c6
L
0
O
n
n
cd
a

HYDE COUNTY
c

• o

1 XI I
+fA( FlELO Z COUJNBIA-•
O ?
a
a ' _
?E
r?

CONSTRUCTED- 1935
A.I.W.W. MILE NO. 113.8
DIMENSIONS: TYPE-2 LANE.200'STEEL.
T6' CLEAR CHANNEL. THROUGH TRUSS. CENTER
VERT. CL.
W
8'11I
L
9 BORNE, SWING SPAN.
.
.
.
. FAIRFIELD BRIDGE CONCRETE PIERS AND PILES.
GASOLINE POWER OPERATED.
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY
B ETW EEN
NORFOMVA. AND THE ST. JOHNS RIVER, FLA.
(WILMINGTON DISTRICT)
CORPS OF ENGINEERS BRIDGE
SCALE OF FEET
0 50 100 150 200
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON, N.C.
57
FIGURE 1
-.'01 , IAoratkC rNe w«os? r 7 Wit. w«w
Oruro Nrll C«apeake a ,} _
Was T E S ' 7 I
BtKkla•d , A a Swthawls ` t
n
1 Isa it ? • `?.
r ?
SS r t Carta
stoswlN+ I sr... P.w ,\ s 4f y is es a l1 uerMt7use
a .etNi S rv ss\ O Im It t 1 a
' Ito swue .` Eli Cky + t
rrff (/ ` ^'? C.
7 V u
arsr
HarrVelli '1 • , , `wr«.?t arok t C' it aM?..r Ti» C TA
a PER IM?1 a..«a.? » rt 0 Trso'\ saad•1t.1t
U T ` 1i•tall I2 ? . % t
tlar?
4
R yttoca 1 'y 0 Ms N•dt ? ?,,,r,
A"4.d $..A A-
7 41a u..... - ? rr.w,w. NorMt •N
t ' 3 s 3 w. Sowa ? WI ' 10•rU Hills
Edan t?t11t011 5 s ? - ? ? ?CWio[Sart , t.r...l a.«a A«.«
s ?, Alb• ttlrt.f+t fr •d•ik 1St sr.a. P.?i
y fort L• No. Aa.,Nass a.p..d a..A A.
r r«r
6 Ny(I Itor NwIwM1aM ' V She" E91.6.4
/5 •/ / S 4
S as ttasala
r , 7 leassat Grove ` unlwa? 7 Lab Habor V-1 SOON
Stuop«ront
esiover ) s IN ey 1 J? N
cc S.4141 w e
) Cheri f a V.
fr«. iryrns? a 1 wwr isoust Ow..lwtet
rnou h s+ ?se..-w
r S WASHINGTON S'. ft \ p A R E
r °"' ' T Y R R E L i S ?" r
32 /5
y Wenona /1 Nett I ??f1/Ct
is Pike Road) Luke
Y: w I - s..y w °? `•
1 Ki&~omy ,?°FAIRFIE l
co" • t5 „ f 7 °?? BRIDGE
Qµ s
,_... Pa•teto •._c- H /1 ? It `; t••asMdw. 1
f
----- - .i `.. 7 Low, It
° R t( r 4 S«aaton t
Both wads advL a
N.ar s.ra)
S -C, Sladeswlle 11
15 NN HaRmw e?
ftfE • "` SvfaaQuartfr CrN Rout ty r,,,,,a
f
tttty ? rrx ParMroo B ?S t?R..° RuY ? ?1??1\/)f?\???? ?
_ ? ? swawut(MTe? ?a6?17G[
??-?? '~ ? HAf't wlldU/E r
Gtsk '' l land ?. \
r-7 "I
ara Royal >2 3 lC5' C" ' \ \ O
r Noa•Wn
J, N,
- AAtsK )(. .yam` / . \ \
Hollywlle t
lCafhCdfa«I SYarW«rt«^
Marche 1 R4 K. \
Beyhar0 0a"
d- ?, flerairce: \
is a Sli Sir 1 i
Meordt ?l i PortsltlwtA t?
SS t /?,PSml?co? Rurrun ,di??? ??/'C'
CeO? IslsrN N" A I
?. Sou5h R ? wer etoaa Lola
Mmnesoll t 2
t)C11 O ?1r`a
r ?' ?Meinmonw ? ?fY? ?y
s =, CJs Atifaftuc
5 5 3 N«te, ?` / S°ateret
OCL arlo.e ? ..,;" Stacy
1711 ' 3' Davisr =! J J??`
Nadowe to !/"r? FY ,L'? t,"
01
Newport t olway ' rAlllston o'e- ?-
R Qae `'+ i \ 3?Smyrna L ?:
- Suans
Of.
Bea,
?O
a`
t
`t
\t
HaUt Orel
fRtf HNy
HNtwe
14 2
lT ? V'
Soho
g

h
er:tan
S ??f1'*f 1 rnrtust
CAN NArnWAS
a.¢...: E." A- w
!n(e1 ?Tr
Y
. ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY
FAIRFIELD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
LOCATION MAP
U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, WILMINGTON
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
58 FIGURE 2
f
N
1
C)
w
W
J
co ,
I
o m w J a
N W D of
CY O W O
W w
D Z L=n LL W
Z
CC I Z Z
N
H F
N W w w w W
Z oC
U oc W
0 D 0 i
W w W C) DC Z LL. LL
or W i W W
0 > Z m > U Z> N~
or W W > W W Lu N o!
W Woe Q W O W
LLU ° 0 Ln <>° 0 w o o w > LL
N Q W Z w Q W Q V N W
J W W J J> J W D Z
O I I W I o N
3: Z) W H
° a 0
o °a LWo°° Z
Cie SQ V O Q W W O Q W Q U -J a
co J W Z J Z J a
III II
m mu
N
OC
Q
co
D
oc
N
co
D
cc
V
N
m
Z
N
m
o:
V
N
O
W
H
N
W
OC
O
LL
W
Z
OC
N
J
Q
a
oc
W
W
3
Z
oC Z
W W
CL
oc O
3 CO

q

v LL LL H ? co

10
M
>-
3
J
3
e, r,
N 0 0 O .0
O I
N ? I O O
N N N L
n LL. LL. LL LL- U- W N
W a a a o_ a a a a o. a o! w

Q W O

S LIJ W
a ? z

Q ?
3z f
? J
3N0

LLJ w "'
Q W a Cie
~ W V
V
U- W
V °C ? _
Z C6
QQ N Zac
0 oa a 710

W V W

Q - Z
°
N N _zo 3 ?
(7
m z Z
V
o F. } f
O Z W a J
a 3
QLL
Q OC vi
g
M
W
m
Ln
I
N
z
a L O
OW Z
o
o S
Q
Z
~
_
Q?- Z J
3
zD 0
o
Q W C
J C
V u W V
Q

LLJ W
LL- w -z
U-j >-

V
O 0-
}
Z -J LLJ
Q Qw > vi Z
]C ]C J ]C O - 0 w CC W Z
V V fn
Z u LU
._I d' } 1L
W- N
O Z
Z
W Z
Q G c
C LLI
= S oo v w
~0? O
F.
Z o

C7
O CIC
N
oc W h (n IX
Ouz
Co< V)
oc Z ZO ,?
Q
O v
w
-? r f
.?
Z
J O CL O LLU C
Q ?} a 3

Q
0 0 o Q

v
lL
K
D
0
LL.
0
W
n , E E
W
U •?
W
rr
rr
Q) 0
0) -1-+
¦ ?¦ CD
ML •-
W -?
2
W
¦ cz
W
L
O

O
Efl
O
Efl

co

ti

4j

co
co

V)
co

M
O
ti

N
ti
O
co
Efl
co
N
<O
W

r

M
co
OM
ti

co
..C
L ?
?
C
G ?

L

V/

.0 CL
L C Cl)
0 U
.fl ?

L
U
-?
? c
G
U
C
c?

Q?
++
co E
L
LL
1.1.

0 0 0 0 0
co (O d' N
E!} Ef} ?} Ef} ?fl ?
(spussnoyl) uun juj!geH aad 3soO
62
FIGURE 6
ALL CATOR
LAKE
/
% N
V
O
FA[RFIELD
BRIDE
PROJECT AREA

1L A K E M A T T A M U S K E E
N A T t O H A L
W 1 L D L 1 F E R E P U G E

5 , , Fmk / ( !1!
1121
8;Z r. in
Lond;ng
SCALE
1 0 1 2 3 4 MILES
03 1 MBE
SCALE FOR ENLARGEMENTS
. ATLANTIC fNTRACOASTAL WATERWAY
FAIRFIELD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
LOCATION MAP
U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, WILMINGTON
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
63 FIGURE
w
w
D
LLL.
co
w
cv
LL.
SWAMP C
HOLLOW
GROUND` - , - \ \ 1
1 ?
4
N ?eL _--
FRVWG
? r
N ? )
ln.rpr Gl'?' ? ]l02
1.40 139
. 1]!D ]113
F"
>? m 1. co Mr, W
3
? IMP s
ch-w 040,w o 13m LUZ
3km ,as
® J % Ndc
r6ftw pow
f
1 1
j (-\ 1
1 lca.,.y _ •1 ? ??
i POTENTIAL i
i% MITIGATION SITE r.?
/ ?.
i
O
C.
"*'??FAIRFIELD BRIDGE
?3 96 07
.ATLANTIC lNTRACOASTAL WATERWAY
FAIRFIELD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
POTENTIAL
MITIGATION SITE
SCALE (SEE SECTION 70)
, 2 , Amxm U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, WILMINGTON
os tA" CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
SCALE FOR ENLARGEMENTS
65 FIGURE 9
REPORT OF FIELD ACTIVITIES FOR THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES,
FAIRFIELD BRIDGE, HYDE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
INTRODUCTION
On August 17 and 18, 1992, Mr. David DuMond and Mr. Hugh Heine traveled to the
vicinity of Fairfield, North Carolina, primarily to perform surveys for
sensitive joint-vetch (Aeschvnomene virainica). Secondarily, the location of
the proposed bridge replacement was to be assessed for the presence of other
endangered species known to occur in Hyde County. Since the habitats at the
proposed bridge replacement site do not approximate oceanic or marine
environments, species that have been recorded from those habitats and from
beach and dune areas were not of concern. Habitats were examined, however,
for presence of or use by the following species.
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Arctic peregrine falcon Falco Pericrrinus tundrius
American alligator mississippiensis
SURVEYS FOR SENSITIVE JOINT-VETCH
The surveys for the joint-vetch were to be accomplished in two areas: (1) at
sites between Fairfield and Englehard in Hyde County where the vetch had been
reported previously and (2) in the vicinity of the proposed N.C. Highway 94
bridge replacement over the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) north of
Fairfield.
The three records for sensitive joint-vetch provided by the North
Carolina Heritage Program make reference to locations that were scattered
between the towns of Fairfield and Englehard along SR 1305 and first noted in
years 1985 to 1990. These locations were checked to the extent possible and
no individuals of the crown vetch were seen after thorough examinations of
each site. All three locations, as currently interpreted, are associated with
roadside shoulders and ditch embankments that are subject to regular highway
maintenance practices.
Since the joint-vetch is an annual, it is understandable how the plant
could be absent after 2 to 7 years. Conversely, as an annual, the species can
be expected to persist at least for a year if conditions are near optimum for
germination and seedling growth in any habitat. If plants are eli;Anated by
some activity before seed set occurs or if optimum conditions fail to reoccur,
the species will not be present the following year unless seeds from some
other source are introduced.
Following the investigations on the three reported sites, the survey was
continued in the vicinity of the proposed alternates for the new bridge
construction.
Habitats at the site of the proposed bridge crossing of the AIWW were
investigated using two methods. Margins of the existing road were surveyed on
foot while looking for occurrences of the joint-vetch. The entire length of
the disturbance that would be anticipated from the proposed construction was
surveyed.
Habitat which would be crossed by the proposed alternates extends both
east and west of the existing road and the ditches that parallel them. Due to
the thickness of these habitats, a second method of surveying was chosen.
With the use of a boat obtained at the existing swing bridge, the canals were
traversed for their entire length through the project area. At two to three
points along each of the canals, the boat was left at the edge of the canal
and transects at right angles to the canals were traversed by foot until the
A-1
location of the proposed alignment had been intersected. This survey method,
while not sufficient to cover all portions of the proposed alignments, did
allow an adequate early inspection of the habitats involved that might support
the joint-vetch.
Habitat characteristics in the vicinity of the bridge are more similar to
identified optimum habitats in the literature for joint-vetch than are those
at the reported sites. The habitat for the species is listed (Radford, A. E.,
H. Ahles, and C. R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas) as "River banks, swamps and tidal marshes...." Mildly brackish to
freshwater marshes dominate the habitats adjacent to most of the proposed
bridge construction site. Stands of pine are located in some portions of the
site. Freshwater maple swamp with trees of low stature grow in the southern
portion of the southeast quadrant of the site. Wide ditches supporting
emergent aquatic plant species parallel both sides of the existing highway.
The shoulders of the highway are very low in many areas. All vegetation,
other than that along the shoulder of'the road, is supported in organic soils
(Histisols). Habitats may be characterized by the following species.
Brackish Marsh
Typha angustifolia .............. Narrow-leaf cattail
Cladium jamaicense .............. Saw-grass
Toxicodendron radicans.......... Poison ivy
Kosteletzkya virginica.......... Marsh mallow
Pinus taeda ..................... Loblolly pine
Pinus serotina .................. Pond pine
Rosa palustris .................. Swamp rose
Myrica cerifera ................. Wax myrtle
Maple Swamp
Acer rubrum ..................... Red maple
Myrica cerifera ................. Wax myrtle
Taxodium distichum .............. Bald cypress
Toxicodendron radicans.......... Poison ivy
Smilax laurifolia ............... Bamboo briar
Osmunda regalis ................. Royal fern
Osmunda cinnamomea .............. Cinnamon fern
Woodwardia virginica............ Virginia Chain fern
Sphagnum cuspidatum ............. Peat moss
Pine-Shrub Thicket
Pinus taeda .....................Loblolly pine
Pinus serotina ..................Pond pine
Myrica cerifera.................Wax myrtle
Toxicodendron radicans.......... Poison ivy
Myrica cerifera .................Wax myrtle
Smilax sp .......................Briar
Roadside Ditch
Sagittaria falcata ..............Arrowhead
Lobelia cardinalis ..............Cardinal flower
Various other shrubby
and herbaceous species
A-2
SURVEYS FOR OTHER THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES
Habitats that, were found in and near the proposed site of the Fairfield Bridge
Replacement were generally considered moderate-to-low quality for regular
usage by any of the threatened and endangered species listed. Red-cockaded
woodpeckers would not find suitable nesting habitat in these wetlands.
Occasional patches of pine might offer temporary cover and low quality
foraging habitat on a temporary basis only. No cavity trees or birds were
noted during the course of the field work.
Nesting habitat for bald eagles may be found in some of the higher trees
or dead snags of the area, but foraging habitat would be limited to the open
waters of the streams and lakes. Considering the hacking activities for this
species in the vicinity of Lake Mattamuskeet within the last few years, seeing
bald eagles in the vicinity of the proposed project site would not be
considered unusual. otherwise, these habitat features would not figure
significantly into the areas to be impacted by the proposed bridge
construction. No eagles or possible eagle nests were seen during the course
of the field work at the proposed construction site.
Use of the area by Arctic peregrine falcons would be little more than
casual and would most likely be limited to periods of migration for this
species during the fall and spring.
Although uncommon in this geographic area, the American alligator would
find suitable foraging and nesting habitat along the AIWW and the streams and
canals it intersects. Areas in which impacts will be realized should be
surveyed again closer to the time of the bridge construction to ensure that
use by this species is not an important factor.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
No indications of threatened or endangered species were noted during the
course of the field work. Joint-vetch was not found, but its apparent absence
from the study sites and the previously reported locations should not be used
as an indication that the species is truly absent or will remain absent from
the area. Its success (measured in terms of whether or not it can produce
viable seed) may simply be dependent upon the occurrence of seed in the
optimum environments. As yet, there is insufficient evidence to assess the
nature of the optimum environments.
At least two stands of one significantly rare species, listed by the State
of North Carolina (Weakley, 1990), were found along the margins of the
brackish marsh, the spike-rush Eleocharis cellulosa. A voucher specimen was
taken and an herbarium specimen will be prepared and deposited in the
herbarium at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington.
Borrow/Disposal Areas. Both potential borrow/disposal areas were surveyed for
the presence of the sensitive joint-vetch on June 15, 1993, by Mr. William F.
Adams, Biologist, with the Wilmington District. This species, known to occur
in both tidal freshwater marshes and ditch banks, has been recorded previously
from the project region, with several populations having been found in flat,
shallow ditches near the north shore of Lake Mattamuskeet.
An existing population of sensitive joint-vetch (Aeschvnomene virainica)
near Washington, North Carolina, was visited to assure that enough of the
growing season had elapsed for the species to have grown to a detectable size.
The species there was found to be 12 to 18 inches high, growing in water
several inches deep on soil with no detectable gradient.
A-3
Both of the potential northern and southern borrow/disposal areas for the
Fairfield Bridge project are currently under cultivation for soybean and corn
production:. within and surrounding these fields lies a network of ;.,simary and
feeder ditches which are frequently maintained for crop drainage. 't'hese
ditches were found to be steep-sided and covered with a rank growth of weed,
vine, and shrub species. No sensitive joint-vetch was detected along any of
these ditches. Further, due to the excessive drainage occurring on the steep
ditch slopes, intense competition for nutrients and sunlight, and a lack of a
nearby seed source, none of these ditches are presently considered to offer
suitable habitat for the species.
No indications of threatened or endangered species were noted during the
course of the field work.
A-4
APPENDIX B
FAIRFIELD'BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
EVALUATION OF WETLANDS
An evaluation of wetlands within the Fairfield study area is found within this
Appendix. Additionally, this appendix includes 'a discussion of the wetland
classification system, information; sources, wetlands mapping, field surveys,
prediction of future conditions, and impacts of alternative plans.
APPENDIX B
FAIRFIELD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
EVALUATION OF WETLANDS
Wetlands were evaluated and mapped for the Fairfield study area to aid in the
evaluation of environmental resource conditions. They are given special
significance for resource planning considerations because of their recognized
value for fish and wildlife habitat, storage area for flood waters, and some
degree of pollution control. These areas also present engineering and
economic constraints to bridge construction because of the high-water table
and hydric soil conditions. Wetlands are given additional significance
because of their losses nationwide and an Executive Order and legislation
which control their use, including Executive Order 11990 (Protection of
Wetland), Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, and the
Emergency Wetland Resources Act of 1986.
The procedure for wetland evaluation involved selecting a classification
system, gathering information sources, wetlands mapping, and field surveys to
ground truth and correct mapping.
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
The classification used for identifying and classifying wetlands in the study
area follows the system developed for the National Wetlands Inventory Program
(Cowardin et al., 1979). A draft wetlands map for the 1:24,000 scale USGS
quad sheet of Fairfield has been prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and was used as the first cut for wetland boundaries within the study
area. Using this system, the following categories of wetlands were identified
for the Fairfield study area.
B-1
Categories Descriptions
ESTUARINE
E10WLx subtidal open water
E10WLd subtidal open water ditched
E2EM1P emergent broad-leaf wetlands, irregularly flooded
PALUSTRINE
PEM1F emergent persistent semi-permanently flooded
PF0113 broad-leaved deciduous forest, saturated
PF01C broad-leaved deciduous forest, seasonally flooded
PF04A needle-leaved evergreen forest, temporarily flooded
PF04B needle-leaved evergreen forest, saturated
PF04C needle-leaved evergreen forest, seasonally flooded
PFOGF deciduous forest, semi-permanently flooded
PF01/4 A broad-leaved deciduous/needle-leaved evergreen forest,
temporarily flooded
PF01/4 B broad-leaved deciduous/needle-leaved evergreen forest,
saturated
PF04/1 C needle-leaved evergreen/broad-leaved deciduous forest,
seasonally flooded
PF04/SS1 B needle-leaved evergreen/scrub-shrub broad-leaved
deciduous forest, saturated
PF04/SS3 B needle-leaved evergreen/scrub-shrub broad-leaved
evergreen forest, saturated
POWHx open water permanently flooded excavated
PSS7B evergreen scrub-shrub, saturated
PSS677 F deciduous/evergreen scrub-shrub, semi-permanently flooded
PSS3/4 B broad-leaved evergreen/needle-leaved evergreen
scrub-shrub, saturated
PSS3/EMI B broad-leaved evergreen scrub-shrub/emergent persistent,
saturated
PSS3/EM1 F broad-leaved evergreen scrub-shrub/emergent persistent,
semi-permanently flooded
PSS6/EMI T deciduous scrub-shrub/emergent persistent, transition
U Primarily represents upland areas but may include
unclassified wetlands such as man-modified areas.
Note: When a "d" is added to the end of the above symbols, it indicates that
the area has been ditched and partially drained.
Some of the mapped units are a mixture of categories and are so shown
on the map by a double symbol separated by a "/."
The symbology used is a four-level system that defines systems,
subsystems, class, and subclass (water regime). Modifiers can be
added to de fine water chemistry, soil conditions, and other modifying
features.
MAPPING PROCEDURE
The National Wetlands Inventory map was enlarged to a scale of 111=200' and
used as an overlay on a project plan at the same scale. Following field
surveys by personnel from the Corps and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
further adjustments were made to the map.
B-2
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The overall project area is rural and consists primarily of forested wetlands,
scrub-shrub wetlands, marsh communities, and a mixture of scrub-shrub/marsh
communities with scattered pockets of high ground. Mildly brackish to
freshwater marshes dominate the habitats adjacent to most of the proposed
bridge construction site. Stands of pine are located in some portions of the
site. Freshwater maple swamp with trees of low stature grow in the southern
portion of the southeast quadrant of the site. Wide ditches supporting
emergent aquatic plant species parallel both sides of the existing highway.
The shoulders of the highway are very low in many areas. Based on field
surveys, the following is a list of the predominant species found within each
of the major categories.
Brackish Marsh (includes E2EM1P and PSS6/EM1 T)
Typha ancustifolia .............. Narrow-leaf cattail
Cladium lamaicense .............. Saw-grass
Toxicodendron radicans.......... Poison ivy
Kosteletzkya virginica.......... Marsh mallow
Pinus taeda ..................... Loblolly pine
Pinus serotina .................. Pond pine
Rosa palustris .................. Swamp rose
Myrica cerifera ................. Wax myrtle
Maple Swamp (includes PFOGF and PFO1/4 B)

Acer rubrum ..................... Red maple
Myrica cerifera ................. Wax myrtle
Taxodium distichum .............. Bald cypress
Toxicodendron radicans.......... Poison ivy
Smilax laurifolia ............... Bamboo briar
Osmunda regalis ................. Royal fern
Osmunda cinnamomea .............. Cinnamon fern
Woodwardia virginica............ Virginia chain fern
Sphagnum cuspidatum ............. Peat moss
Pine-Shrub Thicket (includes PSS 7B and PSS677 F)
Pinus taeda ..................... Loblolly pine
Pinus serotina .................. Pond pine
Myrica cerifera ................. Wax myrtle
Toxicodendron radicans.......... Poison ivy
Myrica cerifera ................. Wax myrtle
Smilax sp ....................... Briar
Roadside Ditch
Sagittaria falcata .............. Arrowhead
Lobelia cardinalis .............. Cardinal flower
Various other shrubby
and herbaceous species
FUTURE WETLAND CONDITIONS
As previously mentioned, a majority of the lands on the north side of the AIWW
are owned by the North Carolina Nature Conservancy. It is, therefore,
expected that the study area would remain relatively unchanged in the future
without the project. The areas that are not owned by the North Carolina
Nature Conservancy are forested, marsh, or scrub-shrub wetlands that are
regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as amended, and by the
North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act. No anticipated changes in the
wetlands are expected in the project area.
B-3
IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS
An overlay for each of the alternative alignments was prepared and used to
determine acres of wetlands affected. The wetland categories affected within
each alignment site were planimetered from 111=200' scale maps. Table 2, The
Fairfield Bridge Environmental Effects, Alternative Bridge Alignments,
presents the results of the tabulations. The borrow/disposal sites and their
entrance roads have been located on lands that are designated by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, as prior-converted
wetlands (SCS, 1993). This means that the hydrological parameter has been
removed, and in accordance with Regulatory Guidance Letter 90-07 issued by the
Corps of Engineers on September 26, 1990 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
1990a), the "PC" is not a wetland and is not regulated pursuant to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act. The Wilmington District, Regulatory Branch, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, has concurred with the Soil Conservation Service's prior-
converted designation on these tracts (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1993).
REFERENCES
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification
of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Prepared for the
Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department
of Interior, Washington, D.C.
B-4
APPENDIX C
FAIRFIELD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
WETLAND IMPACTS AND MITIGATION EVALUATION
The following wetland mitigation analysis was performed on the proposed
Fairfield Bridge replacement. The Fairfield Bridge Wetland Analysis and
Wetland Mitigation Requirements sheets are attached.
MITIGATION GOAL - HABITAT UNITS
Wetland Types. Wetland classifications are based on a system developed for
the National Wetlands Inventory Program (Cowardin et al., 1979). Using this
system, the following wetland types were identified in the Fairfield Bridge
Replacement Study Area. Habitat types potentially impacted by the proposed
bridge replacement are shown on the attached Wetland Analysis Sheet.
PALUSTRINE
PF06F deciduous forest, semi-permanently flooded
PFO1/4 B broad-leaved deciduous/needle-leaved evergreen forest,
saturated
PSS7B evergreen scrub-shrub, saturated
PSS677 F deciduous/evergreen scrub-shrub, semi-permanently
flooded
PSS6/EM1 T deciduous scrub-shrub/emergent persistent, transition
ESTUARINE
E2EM1P emergent broad-leaf wetlands, irregularly flooded
Potential activities related to implementation of the proposed plan and
associated potential wetland impacts were identified as listed below.
Activities associated with the proposed bridge replacement are shown on the
attached Wetland Analysis Sheet.
Filled: Wetlands filled for project construction and converted to
upland.
Excavated: Wetlands excavated for bridge construction and converted to
aquatic habitat.
Bridged: Wetlands which are located beneath the pile-supported bridge
structure.
Representatives from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reviewed
the wetland habitats that would be impacted by the proposed bridge
replacement. The following ranking system was devised.
Value (Relative Wetland Value). A 5-point wetland value system was
established with ratings of High (5), High to Moderate (4), Moderate (3),
Moderate to Low (2), Low (1), and No Value (0). The highest values were
assigned to irregularly flooded wetlands located in areas adjacent to the
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW). Lower relative values were assigned to
areas located further away from the AIWW. No distinctions were made between
similar wetland types (i.e., forested wetlands were made up of PF06F and
PF01/4B and scrub-shrub wetlands were made up of PSS7B and PSS677). The
transitional wetland type (PSS6/EMIT) was equally divided between the scrub-
shrub and marsh wetland category. The value of existing seasonally flooded
forested habitats (PF06F and PF01/4B) and irregularly flooded marsh (E2EM1P),
contribute significantly to the diversity and existing habitat value in the
project area.
C-1
Wetland habitats affected by the proposed construction were devalued
relative to the degree of potential impact. Areas to be filled or excavated
and therefore converted to non-wetlands were assigned a value of 0. Habitat
values associated with the proposed bridge replacement are shown on the
attached Mitigation Analysis Sheet.
Existing Condition. Wetland acres and associated habitat units under
present condition (see Fairfield Bridge Replacement Wetland Analysis).
Acres Present. The National Wetlands Inventory map was enlarged to a
scale of 111=200, and used as an overlay on a project plan at the same scale.
Following field surveys by personnel from the Corps and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, further adjustments were made to the map. A total of 260.4
acres of wetlands are located within the project area.
Habitat Units. Habitat units for the existing condition were calculated
by multiplying the relative wetland value by wetland acres present. A total
of 879.7 habitat units are found within the project area.
With Project. Wetland acres and associated habitat units with the
proposed project in place (see Fairfield Bridge Replacement Wetland Analysis).
Acres Present. Wetland acres were recalculated for the "with project
condition," considering conversion of existing areas of natural habitat to
modified conditions due to project implementation. The total of 253.9 acres
of wetlands would now be located within the project area, if the project were
constructed.
Habitat Units. Habitat units were also recalculated for the "with
project condition." A total of 858.0 habitat units would correspond to these
wetlands.
Net Change. Changes in an area of a given wetland type and corresponding
changes in habitat units, due to project implementation, were determined.
Acres. Permanent losses or gains in acres by habitat types were
determined by subtracting the habitat units available under the with-project
condition from those available the existing condition. These losses are
defined as those wetland areas permanently excavated or filled as a result of
the project. It was determined that about 4.4 acres of wetlands would be lost
(existing condition is 260.4 acres, minus with-project 256.0 acres, equals 4.4
acres) as a result of the proposed activity. However, if the northern road
and causeway were removed and the adjacent wetlands restored, there would be a
gain of 2.0 acres of wetlands. This means that the total net loss of wetlands
that will be mitigated is 2.4 acres. This includes those wetlands permanently
impacted by the construction of the 37 bridge bents (0.3 acres of scrub-shrub
wetlands).
Habitat Units. Net losses in habitat units were also calculated. The
permanent loss of 2.4 acres of wetlands was determined to be about 7.1 habitat
units.
Mitigation Goal (Goal). The study mitigation goal is no net loss of
wetland value.
Acres. Therefore, the total wetland acres that will be lost is 2.4 acres
(see Fairfield Bridge Wetland Mitigation Requirements).
Habitat Units. Our specific goal is the total replacement of habitat
units lost or 7.1 habitat units (see Fairfield Bridge Wetland Mitigation
Requirements).
C-2
MITIGATION ACRES REQUIRED
Mitigation Plans. Three mitigation alternatives were evaluated for the
proposed Fairfield Bridge Replacement to determine mitigation acres required
to replace habitat units lost due to project construction as shown on the
attached Fairfield Bridge Wetland Mitigation Requirements sheet. These
included: (1) the creation of forested, scrub-shrub, and marsh wetlands on
farmed uplands, (2) the creation of forested, scrub-shrub, and marsh wetlands
on prior-converted wetlands, and (3) the restoration of forested, scrub-shrub,
and marsh wetlands on a degraded wetland site. Farmed uplands and prior-
converted wetlands are both cleared and are presently under cultivation.
Degraded wetlands are defined as wetlands which retain their hydrology and
hydric soils, but over 90 percent of the land cover (vegetation) has been
removed. The District determined that land costs in Hyde/Tyrrell Counties
ranged from $2,500 per acre for uplands, $1,500 per acre for prior-converted
wetlands and $1,300 per acre for degraded (timbered) wetlands. Additionally,
the costs for design and engineering, excavation and installation of
flashboard risers, site preparation, and planting of the required vegetation
are determined as a cost per acre.
Habitat Units/Acre. Relative wetland values were assigned to a given
acre of mitigation land (based on criteria described above for the existing
condition) assuming a progressive increase in value over time as vegetation on
the site matures.
Year 0, Year 25, and Year 50. Target years were assigned. It is assumed
that at year zero, the site would have a value of 0.6 for both farmed uplands
and prior-converted wetlands and 0.7 for degraded wetlands. It should reach
its maximum potential at year 50. It was assumed that the mitigated wetlands
would not exceed the relative wetland value of the unaffected wetlands (i.e.,
mitigated forested wetlands would have a value of 3 at the end of 50 years,
etc.).
Average Annual Habitat Units Per Acre. Relative values, assigned for
target years 0, 25, and 50, were annualized.
Mitigation Goal. Mitigation Goal was determined to be 7.1 habitat units
as shown on the attached Wetland Mitigation Requirement sheet.
Acres Needed. The number of mitigation acres needed was determined by
dividing the mitigation Goal by the average annual habitat units per acre as
shown on the attached Wetland Mitigation Requirement sheet.
MITIGATION COST
Potential mitigation costs were calculated for each of the three alternatives.
Costs were evaluated for a typical wetland restoration alternative (degraded
wetlands) and two wetland creation plans (either farmed uplands or prior-
converted wetlands).
INCREMENTAL COST PER HABITAT UNIT
The cost per habitat unit for alternative mitigation scenarios were compared
to determine the least costly mitigation alternative. The restoration of
wetlands on prior-converted wetlands is the least costly alternative and is
the proposed mitigation plan.
REFERENCES
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification
of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Prepared for
the office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
C-3
FAIRFIELD BRIDGE WETLAND MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
RELATIVE WETLAND VALUES
OJect Name: Fairfield Bridge Replacement
""""'Wetland Type: Forested Wetlands PF
"Location: Fairfield, orth Carolina
N
»> Evaluator:
a. Name:

WarrYowHe
Heine
b enc
. A N WRC SA E
USFWS C U C
9 Y•
# Wetland Functions Rel. Im ort. Scale Values >>>' < Wei ht Value
P 9
:.:: :.: .. ....... . ... ..........:. .............................. ... .... . .. ............................. .. ........ . ......... ........
. ....., .. ., .., ............. .. .................. ........ ... ... ...... .
1 Flood Conveyance 1 1 1
2 Waves and Erosion 2 2 4
3 Flood Storage 3 2 6
4 Sediment Control 4 3 12
6 Fish Habitat
a. Spawning 3 0 0
b. Nursery 5 3 15
c. Commercial 0 0 0
d. Recreational 3 0 0
6 Shellfish Habitat
a. Nursery 3 0 0
b. Commercial 0 0 0
c. Recreational 0 0 0
7 Waterfowl Habitat
a. Nesting 4 3 12
b. Feeding 4 3 12
c. Cover 5 3 15
8 Wildlife Habitat
a. Nesting/Breeding 5 5 25
b. Feeding 5 5 25
c. Cover 5 5 25
9 Recreation 2 2 4
10 Water Supply 0 0 0
11 Food Production 0 0 0
12 Timber Production 1 2 2
13 Historical Values 0 0 0
14 Education & Research 3 3 9
15 Aesthetic Values 4 4 16
16 Water Quality 5 4 20
Total 67 203
Wetland Value = 3.03
......: ::...............:::::::.......
NOTES: Relative Wetland Values: High= 5, Moderate=3, Low=1, No Value=0
Relative Importance: High =5. Moderate=3, Low = 1, Not Applicable =0
C-4
FAIRFIELD BRIDGE WETLAND MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
RELATIVE WETLAND VALUES
Project Name' Fairfield Bridge Replacement
Wetland Type: Scrub-shrub PSS
>`<
Location: Fairfield, North Carolina
Evaluator:
a. Name: Warr YowHeine
b A enc t=W NCWR SA E

US S C U C
9 Y
................................
# Wetland Functions z> Rel. Import. » Scale Values ':` Weighted Value
0-5
• 0-6
1 Flood Conveyance 1 1 1
2 Waves and Erosion 2 2 4
3 Flood Storage 3 3 9
4 Sediment Control 4 4 16
5 Fish Habitat
a. Spawning 3 0 0
b. Nursery 5 3 15
c. Commercial 0 0 0
d. Recreational 3 0 0
6 Shellfish Habitat
a. Nursery 3 0 0
b. Commercial 0 0 0
c. Recreational 0 0 0
7 Waterfowl Habitat
a. Nesting 4 2 8
b. Feeding 4 3 12
c. Cover 5 4 20
8 Wildlife Habitat
a. Nesting/Breeding 5 5 25
b. Feeding 5 4 20
c. Cover 5 5 25
9 Recreation 2 0 0
10 Water Supply 0 0 0
11 Food Production 0 0 0
12 Timber Production 1 0 0
13 Historical Values 0 0 0
14 Education & Research 3 2 6
15 Aesthetic Values 4 3 12
16 Water Quality 5 .4 20
Total 67 193
Wetland Value = 2.88
::::<::.::<:;:.<:.::;::; :::.::::::....................................................... ........::.;
............................................ <.::. L_>1<.;:.:.: N.. Value =::<.:.;:.::...........
NOTES: Relative Wetland Values: High _5, Moderate=3, Lo w=1, 0
Relative Importance: High =5, Moderate=3, Low = 1, Not Applicable =0
C-5
FAIRFIELD BRIDGE WETLAND MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
RELATIVE WETLAND VALUES

Pro'ect Name:

J .
Bridge Replacement

Fairfield 9
Wetland Type: Marsh E
()
Location:
Fairfield, North Carolina
Evaluator:
a. Name:
Yw Heine
Warr, o
e c
b. A n

Y=
9 N WR USACE
FWS C C

US

,
,
# Wetland Functions :: Rel. Import ':.>'<#< Scale Values Weighted Value
0-5
0-5
..... s i
......:..:...:...::sue s3>
++iiii:• x*** ::l:: i::?i::: ii$: ii::} i:•ii:::::•Y' r 'fi'g. i
:rz> <z
1 Flood Conveyance 1 2 2
2 Waves and Erosion 2 3 6
3 Flood Storage 3 4 12
4 Sediment Control 4 5 20
5 Fish Habitat
a. Spawning 3 5 15
b. Nursery 5 5 25
c. Commercial 0 0 0
d. Recreational 3 2 6
6 Shellfish Habitat
a. Nursery 3 4 12
b. Commercial 0 0 0
c. Recreational 0 0 0
7 Waterfowl Habitat
a. Nesting 4 3 12
b. Feeding 4 5 20
c. Cover 5 4 20
8 Wildlife Habitat
a. Nesting/Breeding 5 4 20
b. Feeding 5 5 25
c. Cover 5 4 20
9 Recreation 2 2 4
10 Water Supply 0 0 0
11 Food Production 0 0 0
12 Timber Production 1 0 0
13 Historical Values 0 0 0
14 Education & Research 3 4 12
15 Aesthetic Values 4 4 16
16 Water Quality 5 5 25
Total 67 272
Wetland Value = 4.06
NOTES: Relative Wetland Values: High =5, Moderate=3, Low=1, No Value=0
Relative Importance: High =5, Moderate=3, Low = 1, Not Applicable =0
C-6
FAIRFIELD BRIDGE WETLAND MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
RELATIVE WETLAND VALUES
Project Name: Fairfield Bridge Replacement

and Type: Farmed Uplands
?' etl
L
O Fairfield, North Carolina
ocatl n
Evaluator:
a Name: Warr, Yow Heine
c WR A
b A en SFWS NC C US CE
U
9 Y
# Wetland Functions z Rel. Import . Scale Values #<#;. Weighted Value
5
1 Flood Conveyance 1 0 0
2 Waves and Erosion 2 0 0
3 Flood Storage 3 1 3
4 Sediment Control 4 1 4
5 Fish Habitat
a. Spawning 3 0 0
b. Nursery 5 0 0
c. Commercial 0 0 0
d. Recreational 3 0 0
6 Shellfish Habitat
a. Nursery 3 0 0
b. Commercial 0 0 0
c. Recreational 0 0 0
7 Waterfowl Habitat
a. Nesting 4 0 0
b. Feeding 4 1 4
c. Cover 5 0 0
8 Wildlife Habitat
a. Nesting/Breeding 5 0 0
b. Feeding 5 2 10
c. Cover 5 2 10
9 Recreation 2 1 2
10 Water Supply 0 0 0
11 Food Production 0 5 0
12 Timber Production 1 0 0
13 Historical Values 0 0 0
14 Education & Research 3 1 3
15 Aesthetic Values 4 1 4
16 Water Quality 5 0 0
Total 67 40
Wetland Value = 0.60
NOTES: Relative Wetland Values. High =5, Moderate=3, Low=1, No Value=0
Relative Importance: High =5, Moderate=3, Low = 1, Not Applicable =0
C-7
FAIRFIELD BRIDGE WETLAND MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
RELATIVE WETLAND VALUES
Project Name: Fairfield Bridge Replacement
Wetland Type: Prior Converted (PC) Wetlands
Location: Fairfield, North Carolina
Evaluator:
a. Name:
Warr, Yo w,
b. A enc USFWS NCWRC USACE
9 Y
# Wetland Functions :<Rel. Im ort. >: Scale Values Weighted Value

P
0-5
......................................................................................:.....:......................:.:..::.:•
1 Flood Conveyance 1 1 1
2 Waves and Erosion 2 0 0
3 Flood Storage 3 1 3
4 Sediment Control 4 1 4
5 Fish Habitat
a. Spawning 3 0 0
b. Nursery 5 0 0
c. Commercial 0 0 0
d. Recreational 3 0 0
6 Shellfish Habitat
a. Nursery 3 0 0
b. Commercial 0 0 0
c. Recreational 0 0 0
7 Waterfowl Habitat
a. Nesting 4 0 0
b. Feeding 4 1 4
c. Cover 5 0 0
8 Wildlife Habitat
a. Nesting/Breeding 5 0 0
b. Feeding 5 2 10
c. Cover 5 2 10
9 Recreation 2 1 2
10 Water Supply 0 0 0
11 Food Production 0 5 0
12 Timber Production 1 0 0
13 Historical Values 0 0 0
14 Education & Research 3 1 3
15 Aesthetic Values 4 1 4
16 Water Quality 5 0 0
Total 67 41
Wetland Value = 0.61
.:: r:.; .t ;<;:_ Lw:_.:.<:;.;: ... _ ......_..:.
<NOTES: RelativWetland ..Val;< ;;
e a ues: High= 5, Mode a e 3, Lo w=1, No Value 0
Relative Importance: High =5, Moderate=3, Low = 1, Not Applicable =0
C-8
FAIRFIELD BRIDGE WETLAND MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
.................................
. .............................
RELATIVE WETLAND VALUES
`,o1"ect Name' Fairfield Bridge Replacement
>: > Pr e RI me t
>'> Wetland Type: Degraded Wetlands
Location: Fairfield, North Carolina
Evaluator:
a. Name:
Warr, Y w Hein
o e
b. A enc
FWS N WR A E
US C C US C
9 Y?
# Wetland Functions z>' Rel. Import. Scale Values Weighted Value
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Flood Conveyance 1 1 1
Waves and Erosion 2 1 2
Flood Storage 3 2 6
Sediment Control 4 2 8
Fish Habitat
a. Spawning 3 0 0
b. Nursery 5 1 5
c. Commercial 0 0 0
d. Recreational 3 0 0
Shellfish Habitat
a. Nursery 3 0 0
b. Commercial 0 0 0
c. Recreational 0 0 0
Waterfowl Habitat
a. Nesting 4 1 4
b. Feeding 4 1 4
c. Cover 5 1 5
Wildlife Habitat
a. Nesting/Breeding 5 1 5
b. Feeding 5 1 5
c. Cover 5 1 5
Recreation 2 1 2
Water Supply 0 0 0
Food Production 0 0 0
Timber Production 1 2 2
Historical Values 0 0 0
Education & Research 3 1 3
Aesthetic Values 4 1 4
Water Quality 5 2 10
Total 67
71
Wetland Value = 1.06
NOTES: Relative Wetland Values: High 5, Moderate=3, Low=1, No Value=0
Relative Importance: High =5, Moderate=3, Low = 1, Not Applicable =0
C-9
FAIRFIELD BRIDGE WETLAND MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
HABITAT UNITS (HU)
Wetland Type Value Existing Condition With Project Net Loss Goal
Rel. Acres Habitat Acres Habitat Acres Habitat Habitat
Value Present Units Present Units Units Units
Forested (PF) 3.03 89.5 271.2 88.0 266.6 1.5 4.5 4.5
Scrub-shrub (PSS) 2.88 72.3 208.3 71.4 205.7 0.9 2.6 2.6
Marsh (E) 4.06 98.6 400.3 98.6 400.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 260.4 879.7 258.0 872.6 2.4 7.1 7.1
ACRES
Mitigation Plans Exist Habitat Units /Acre Av. An. Net Mit. Acres
Value (P Given Interval HUs Value Goal Needed
Yr.0 Yr. 25 Yr. 50
Create Forested Wetlands
Farmed Uplands 0.60 0.6 1.0 2.5 1.3 0.7 4.5 6.7
PC's 0.61 0.6 2.0 3.0 1.9 1.3 4.5 3.5
Degraded Wetlands 1.06 1.1 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 4.5 4.8
Create Scrub-shrub Wet.
Farmed Uplands 0.60 0.6 1.0 2.5 1.3 0.7 2.6 3.8
PC's 0.61 0.6 2.0 3.0 1.9 1.3 2.6 2.0
Degraded Wetlands 1.06 1.1 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.6 2.7
Create Marsh Wetlands
Farmed Uplands 0.60 0.6 1.0 3.5 1.5 0.9 0.0 0.0
PC's 0.61 0.6 2.5 4.0 2.4 1.8 0.0 0.0
Degraded Wetlands 1.06 1.1 2.5 4.0 2.5 1.5 0.0 0.0
COST IN DOLLARS
Mitigation Plans Land Design Excavate Site Plant Acres Cost Total
Cost & Engin & Install Prep Veg. Need per HU. Cost
Create Forested Wetlands
Farmed Uplands 2,500 3,500 39,300 3,000 1,700 6.7 73,711 335,000
PC's 1,500 800 3,600 1,000 1,700 3.5 6,623 30,100
Degraded Wetlands 1,300 800 3,600 1,000 1,700 4.8 8,872 40,320
Create Scrub-shrub Wet.
Farmed Uplands 2,500 1,500 39,300 3,000 1,700 3.8 70,356 182,400
PC's 1,500 800 3,600 1,000 1,700 2.0 6,634 17,200
Degraded Wetlands 1,300 800 3,600 1,000 1,700 2.7 8,748 22,680
Create Marsh Wetlands
Farmed Uplands 2,500 1,500 39,300 3,000 6,500 0.0 0.0 0.0
PC's 1,500 800 3,600 1,000 6,500 0.0 0.0 0.0
Degraded Wetlands 1,300 800 3,600 1,000 6,500 0.0 0.0 0.0
C-10
f
111

a ?
O , Q ' ^ ' a rn a °
O C
D o r- o ? O LO
F- N 00 00
E-
Z
y W N W 00 W O LLU CO
!Q (n T U) v co T- co

Z
a a a a
Q ...?
o
CO O
~ a
O a
2 to
? Q
Z a
O
y W O y W M cr.
W W O
O W
Z ?j W W
? V W W v)

°' ?
U Q
to S
(0
W Q
co
CD = a
E
CD

U

Q

co

L

a
0 06

LO

0
U)

m

Z

Q

LO
.
I
- Z co T
Z .
?
- co
a_ _ CO O
°' N C m
co Q
F. a
c
LO a
c
m
N ?-
1Q- a
=
m a
a
X
a
ct)
co
O
Q c
a
0)
vii
C°° J
C. e
a
a>
?
O
m c
a
d
W
N i
a?
a- a- a- a. CL

It N a CO

; (n

O
?t
O
C'0

6
:5 o

W
LO

LO
o

? r

CD
T

C.
O

o
a

td

o
LL

(
CD
T-

c
v
Lco a r CLI
C-
_ c
-
co

C)
U-
4
LPL
O
LPL
N
LPL
C7J
E
CL a T a a
y

Q
w
0
F-
iC
C7 C7

aLwi to
Q = Q = Q = Q =
i L z z
` i ! I ` l ` z ` z
- -. a a a a
C-11
i
I
i

z
W

z
;? cl oo v U') Ln L Ci m -0: U? LO In
J 0 ?- O N r 0 (6 O O N •? O cri
Q F- F-
Z

LU t
2
?- LU 7 cq r') 0 o N
co 0 0 0 0 0 T-
W
U)
CL

W

a a

a
s
ry o Ln o o t? ? cy v co 0 0 N
O N' 0 0 0 0 r r
F
- 0 0 0 0 (\j
a o Q

g ( l cn g
U) o
o o
6 o L
c; o
w
CL

H m n
can o o v o o ?r .`c= - v ca Un O co
0 w o o 0 0 0 0 Co C> - o o (\j
LL. CL C.)
U) Cn

U
T
0
0
0
C'7
O
CO
Q p o 0 0 0 0 p
a `
m

D O O N 1? to O O N O LO I?
z O O O O O r 0 0 0 O t-
g C- o
U-

? I
N J >
' J
n
co
cu

v

3

o

c

C
O
3

Q

Q
m
Q
0 U . ?
m U N
0
Q - :3 ~ Q ¢ Q =3 ~
oC U 0i
a U G = U U
> ? -

z r ( n
v
z
>
?
C
o W o o °' o
Z ? z W C O
y
C j C

U I ! U
C-12

CA
N

a
i
m

'k O
W ?¢- r rn a ;. M ao M 'R U?
?t
O
?t
¢
O
O N O O G O ,- o o .- C .C! N N ~O r
Q W H '° W
M Q ()
~ -- - 'c
co
ul U z
m
W
O

Z m L o
CO L U) N 't C O O CO CD O co d U
J CD o
" O ca CV y O O O O r r Q CD -
Q
E

C
V
S a

.Q .n
0

"
V h 0? N CA z Q ,-
41 co CA O CID It 0)

L

O

cz
`L
U r I (Yj a T o 0 0 0 0 r O O (r)
cn cn U) U) E

CL

L Z c
0 ?

z

L

as g

a)
g
C
N ? C
a)
°'
N a)
)
co
ca w
y
f-
U a) to 0 «
a) O o O O O LO a) to
L a
j d
p
O
a)
0
0
0
,
O
?-

O

r
?
C

a)
LL O
I
L0 O
?- RS
3
N U
CO

y
d O
t
? I ? I i i f- ~

a

Z
I
C6
d
Ci3
3:
Q
C
U
0
Q
V a) `
a U
¢
?
m CUJ
< H
O {'-
O

c L c? D
a) t =3
C? F- F--
O " a C
2 U U C? °
z
U
CD
L
m
y

.
v
0
Z

r

>

O

C

y

p O
Z
W
° Cn
O
Cl U) C 70 cm co
>
tn *
* N E
a)
F- U Z m W F p- I U
cl:
C-13
APPENDIX D
CULTURAL RESOURCES
A description of the archaeological and historic surveys conducted for the
proposed alignment and borrow sites is included in this appendix. Also
included in this appendix is a copy of a letter dated April 27, 1993, from Mr.
David Brook, the Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer.
APPENDIX D
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The borrow/disposal areas north and south of the existing bridge were also
inspected for evidence of cultural resources during an onsite meeting of June
15, 1993. The 45-acre borrow/disposal site north of the bridge is located
near Kilkenny, west of N.C. Highway 94. According to the Tyrrell County Soil
Survey (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1988), the soils within the proposed
45-acre borrow/disposal area consist primarily of Belhaven muck (Ba) and Roper
muck (Rp). The 35-acre borrow/disposal area on the south of the bridge
consists predominantly of Roper muck (Personal communication, June 28, 1993,
Mr. Rufus Croom, District Conservationist, U.S. Soil Conservation Service).
These soil units are described as very poorly drained soils formed in fluvial
and marine sediments under wet conditions (U.S. Department of Agriculture,
1988). All of the proposed northern and southern borrow/disposal areas have
been drained and are presently farmed. These farm fields are bisected by
drainage canals which are 4 to 8 feet wide and 2 to 5 feet deep. Since these
borrow/disposal areas were once wetlands before they were converted to farm
fields, they have a very low potential for containing significant
archaeological sites. Several judgmentally placed test cores were taken in
both of the proposed borrow/disposal areas and no artifacts or evidence of
features were found. Both of the proposed borrow/disposal areas were visually
inspected and no evidence of archaeological materials were found. No further
archaeological work is recommended if these areas are used for borrow/disposal
for this project.
D-1
April 8, 1993
Planning Division
Dr. William S. Price, Jr.
State Historic Preservation Officer
North Carolina Division of
Archives and History
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Dr. Price:.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, is
proposing to replace the Fairfield Bridge in Hyde and Tyrrell
Counties, North Carolina. The Wilmington District has indicated
to your office in previous correspondence that we believe that the
Fairfield Bridge is potentially eligible for the National Register
of Historic Places. Consultation, pursuant to Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, on the data
recovery/recordation requirements for the removal of the bridge
has not been undertaken but will be completed during the environ-
mental review process for the project.
The Wilmington District has recently concluded an alignment
study for the project and has identified three potential
alignments (see map 1). All of these alignments traverse the
following soil types: Dorovan Muck and Lafitte Mucky Peat which
are described in the Soil Survey for Hyde County as very poorly
drained, highly organic soils with seasonal high water 1 foot
above to 0.5 foot below the surface, which are frequently flooded;
Ponzer Muck and Pungo Muck which are described as very poorly
drained, highly organic soils with seasonal high water 0 foot
above to 1 foot below the surface, which are rarely flooded; and
Udorthents Loamy which is described as areas where the natural
soil has been altered by digging, grading, or filling to the
extent that individual soil types can no longer be recognized
(see map 2). All of these soils types have a very low to
negligible potential for containing any significant prehistoric
or historic archaeological materials. Based on this very low
archaeological potential, the Wilmington District has determined
that no archaeological investigations are required prior to
construction within the potential alignment areas of this project.
Archeological survey requirements for borrow areas which may be
required for construction will be determined when the borrow areas
are identified.
D-2

-2-
Please review the above information and provide comments
regarding our determination not to undertake archaeological survey
within the potential alignment area for this project. If you have
any questions on this matter, please contact Mr. Richard H. Lewis,
Archaeologist, at [phone].
Sincerely,
Lawrence W. Saunders
Chief, Planning Division
Enclosures
Copy Furnished (with enclosures):
Mr. Stephen R. Claggett
State Archaeologist
Office of State Archaeology
North Carolina Division of
Archives and History
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
74-
CESAW-PD-E/L s/cs/4 55
CESAW-PD-EAKe+t '
CESAW-PD-E/
CESAWfP- Goodwin
CESAWlll??/s/
Mai 1me9
CESAW FILE: FAIRLET
D-3
-T eR ?.•„
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
ames B. Hunt. Jr., Governor
3etty,Ray McCain, Secretary
April 27, 1993
Lawrence W. Saunders
Chief, Planning Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Re: Replacement of Fairfield Bridge over AIWW, Hyde
County, ER 92-8584, ER 93-8653
Dear Mr. Saunders:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of April 8, 1993, concerning the above project. We
have conducted an additional review of the proposed project and offer the
following comments.
Based on information collected during archaeological surveys of portions of Hyde
County during the 1980s, it has become apparent that contemporary soils
characteristics alone are not always accurate predictors of site location,
particularly in the peaty areas of northeastern North Carolina. Although it is clear
that such areas have a substantially lower density of archaeological sites, they
often do contain sites. For example, a prehistoric site located on comparably low
and mucky soils near the Alligator River north of the project area was recently
reported to our office. What is increasingly apparent is'that the models of site
location may need to be modified to fit the overall topographic and hydrological
context of the region. In the Hyde County area, the norm is poorly drained and
low-lying mucky soils, yet historical references indicate that people did occupy the
area. At least one Algonkian village--Tramaskuanoc-is shown on the John White
map of 1585 on the Alligator River, which is bounded by such soils along its entire
length.
In spite of these concerns, and given the relatively small area of potential effect of
the proposed project, we agree that the potential for affpcting significant
archaeological sites is relatively low and that no archaeological survey is necessary
prior to initiation of construction. However, appropriate cautions should be
transmitted to the construction contractor, including a stop-work clause if
possible, in the event that any artifacts or unusual soil features are observed
during construction.
We also concur that our office should be afforded an opportunity to review all
borrow areas identified for use during the project construction.
D-4
trw -,c, Tnn,c Street - Ralc'rh Nnr(h Carolina 27(4)1-2.q07

Lawrence W. Saunders
April 27, 1993, Page 2
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.
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:sIw
D-5
APPENDIX E
FAIRFIELD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
ALIGNMENT 1
AIWW, HYDE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
EVALUATION OF SECTION 404(b)(1) GUIDELINES
40 CFR 230
Section 404 Public Notice No. CESAW-PD-E-93-48-0018
1. Review of Compliance (230.10(a)-(d))
A review of the NEPA Document
indicates that:
a. The discharge represents the least
environmentally damaging practicable
alternative and if in a special
aquatic site, the activity associated
with the discharge must have direct
access or proximity to, or be located
in the aquatic ecosystem to fulfill
its basic purpose (if no, see section
2 and information gathered in the
NEPA document);
b. The activity does not:
(1) violate applicable State water
quality standards or effluent
standards prohibited under Section
307 of the CWA; (2) jeopardize the
existence of federally listed
endangered or threatened species or
their habitat; and (3) violate
requirements of any federally
designated marine sanctuary (if no,
see section 2b and check responses
from resource and water quality
certifying agencies);
c. The activity will not cause or
contribute to significant degradation
of waters of the U.S. including
adverse effects on human health, life
stages of organisms dependent on the
aquatic ecosystem, ecosystem
diversity, productivity and
stability, and recreational,
esthetic, and economic
values (if no, see section 2);
Preliminary 1/
September 13, 1993
Final 2/
YES'Xi NOj_j* YES1X1 NO,_
YES1Xj N01_1* YES1X1 N01_1
YES1X1 N01_1* YES1X1 N01_1
d. Appropriate and practicable steps
have been taken to minimize potential
adverse impacts of the discharge
on the aquatic ecosystem
(if no, see section 5). YES1X1 N01_1* YESiXi N01_1
Proceed to Section 2
*, 1, 2/ See page E-6.
E-1
2. Technical Evaluation Factors (Subparts C-F)
a. Physical and Chemical Characteristics
of the Aquatic Ecosystem (Subpart C)
(1) Substrate impacts.
(2) Suspended particulates/turbidity
impacts.
(3) Water column impacts.
(4) Alteration of current patterns
and water circulation.
(5) Alteration of normal water
fluctuations/hydroperiod.
(6) Alteration of salinity
gradients.
b. Biological Characteristics of the
Aquatic Ecosystem (Subpart D)
Not Signifi- Signifi-
N/A cant cant *
(1) Effect on threatened/endangered
species and their habitat. , X
(2) Effect on the aquatic food web. X
(3) Effect on other wildlife (mammals,
birds, reptiles, and amphibians). X
c. Special Aquatic Sites (Subpart E)
(1) Sanctuaries and refuges.
(2) Wetlands.
(3) Mud flats.
(4) Vegetated shallows.
(5) Coral reefs.
(6) Riffle and pool complexes.
d. Human Use Characteristics (Subpart F)
(1) Effects on municipal and private
water supplies.
(2) Recreational and commercial
fisheries impacts.
(3) Effects on water-related recreation.
(4) Esthetic impacts.
(5) Effects on parks, national and
historical monuments, national
seashores, wilderness areas,
research sites, and similar
preserves.
X
X#
X j
X
X
X !
Remarks: Where a check is placed under the significant category,
preparer add explanation below.
# Impacts to wetlands will be mitigated as described in Section 7.0 of
the Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Proceed to Section 3
*See page E-6.
E-2
3. Evaluation of Dredged or Fill Material (Subpart G) 3
a. The following information has been
considered in evaluating the biological
availability of possible contaminants in
dredged or fill material. (Check only
those appropriate.)
(1) Physical characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iX
(2) Hydrography in relation to
known or anticipated
sources of contaminants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iX
(3) Results from previous
testing of the material
or similar material in _
the vicinity of the project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i_
(4) Known significant sources of
persistent pesticides from _
land runoff or percolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(5) Spill records for petroleum
products or designated
(Section 311 of CWA) _
hazardous substances. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i_
(6) Other public records of
significant introduction of
contaminants from industries,
municipalities, or other _
sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(7) Known existence of substantial
material deposits of
substances which could be
released in harmful quantities
to the aquatic environment by _
man-induced discharge activities . . . . . . . . . . . . i_
(8) Other sources (specify) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i _
List appropriate references.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Fairfield Bridge Replacement,
AIWW, Hyde County, North Carolina
b. An evaluation of the appropriate information in 3a
above indicates that there is reason to believe the
proposed dredge or fill material is not a carrier of
contaminants, or that levels of contaminants are sub-
stantively similar at extraction and disposal sites and
not likely to result in degradation of the disposal site.
The material meets the testing exclusion criteria. YES NO
Proceed to Section 4
* 3/, see page E-6.
E-3
4. Disposal Site Determinations (230.11(f)).
a. The following factors, as appropriate,
have been considered in evaluating the
disposal site.
(1) Depth of water at disposal site . . . . . . . . . . .
(2) Current velocity, direction, and
variability at disposal site . . . . . . . . . . . .
(3) Degree of turbulence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(4) Water column stratification . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(5) Discharge vessel speed and
direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(6) Rate of discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(7) Dredged material characteristics
(constituents, amount and type
of material, settling velocities) . . . . .
(8) Number of discharges per unit of . . . . .
time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(9) Other factors affecting rates and
patterns of mixing (specify)
. . . . . . . . iX
List appropriate references.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Fairfield Bridge Replacement,
AIWW, Hyde County, North Carolina
b. An evaluation of the appropriate factors in
4a above indicates that the disposal site
and/or size of mixing zone are acceptable . . . .YES NO
5. Actions to Minimize Adverse Effects (Subpart H).
All appropriate and practicable steps have been taken,
through application of recommendations of 230.70-230.77,
to ensure minimal adverse effects of the proposed
discharge. List actions taken. YES ixi NO
For wetlands, see section 7.0 and Table 3 of the Final Environmental Impact
Statement. For water quality, see sections 3.2.4 and 5.0 of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement.
Return to section 1 for final stage of compliance review. See also
note 3/, page E-6.
*See page E-6.
E-4
6. Factual Determinations (230.11).
A review of appropriate information as identified in
items 2-5 above indicates that there is minimal
potential for short- or long-term environmental
effects of the proposed discharge as related to:
a. Physical substrate at the disposal site _
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5). YES 1X, NO i_i*
b. Water circulation, fluctuation, and salinity _
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5). YES iXI NO 1_1*
c. Suspended particulates/turbidity
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5). YES NO 1_1-
d. Contaminant availability _
(review sections 2a, 3, and 4). YES NO 1_1*
e. Aquatic ecosystem structure and function YES NO 1_1*
(review sections 2b and c, 3, and 5).
f. Disposal site
(review sections 2, 4, and 5). YES NO
g. Cumulative impact on the aquatic _
ecosystem. YES iXI NO 1_1*
h. Secondary impacts on the aquatic
ecosystem. YES NO 1_1*
7. Findings.
a. The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material complies with the _
Section 404(b)(1) guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iX
b. The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material complies with the
Section 404(b)(1) guidelines with the _
inclusion of the following conditions:
c. The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material does not comply with
the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines for the
following reasons(s):
(1) There is a less damaging practicable alternative. . . .
(2) The proposed discharge will result in significant
degradation of the aquatic ecosystem . . . . . . . . .
(3) The proposed discharge does not include all
practicable and appropriate measures to minimize
potential harm to the aquatic ecosystem . . . . .
E-5
Lawrence Sa ders
Chief, P1 nni Division
Date: /7
Robe t J. Sperberg
Colonel, U.S. Army
14District Engineer
Date: 17 kt*4f tl?q
*A negative, significant, or unknown response indicates that the permit
application may not be in compliance with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines.
1/ Negative responses to three or more of the compliance criteria at this
stage indicate that the proposed projects may not be evaluated using this
"short form procedure." Care should be used in assessing pertinent portions
of the technical information of items 2 a-d, before completing the final
review of compliance.
2/ Negative response to one of the compliance criteria at this stage indicates
that the proposed project does not comply with the guidelines. If the
economics of navigation and anchorage of Section 404(b)(2) are to be evaluated
in the decision-making process, the "short form" evaluation process is
inappropriate.
3/ If the dredged or fill material cannot be excluded from individual testing,
the "short-form" evaluation process is inappropriate.
E-6
(..
���
i.
::

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
FAIRFIELD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT STUDY
FINAL FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT REPORT
Raleigh Field Office
551 F Pylon Drive
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
F-1
FAIRFIELD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT STUDY
FINAL FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT REPORT
PREPARED BY
HOWARD F. HALL
U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
RALEIGH FIELD OFFICE
L. K. MIKE GANTT
SUPERVISOR
FEBRUARY 1994
F-2
?- / ? - ?'. • ? .~ +.• ? ?• !• . lid ,}•s -
`?'s•:} ? ?-•? ?•`;^?'r=r' ?=' .t t :•?3'•.c;,.'-t 4 rte: • t i aR.- . -
EWTER.
AL1GWMEWT
Me EtIT.
'? ?.L1 ?`•?'*,. /? .. jai 1r_. .. _• F.
7.- A
JAI
_tz
Y TO FAIRFIELD
Figure 2: Potential Alignments Considered for Fairfield Bridge
Replacement, Hyde County, North Carolina (Source: USACOE 1993).
F-3
1 TO GOLUMNA
Fairfield Bridge project. However, the distance between the AIWW disposal
site and Fairfield Bridge is over 15 miles and the road to the disposal site
would require extensive upgrading. Thus, the Corps deleted this as an option.
Currently the Corps is considering Prior Converted (PC) farm fields as borrow
sites. Approximately 120,000 to 200,000 cubic yards of material will be
required for the bridge, approach, access roads and temporary detour roads.
The material used will include sands, silts and clays. North of the project
site, an approximately 50-acre borrow site would be necessary, 10 acres of
which would be used as a disposal site for any unsuitable material and 5 acres
of which would be used to create a concrete batch plant. On the southern
side, an approximately 35-acre borrow site would be needed, 10 acres of which
would be for disposal of unsuitable material.
DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES
The construction of temporary roads and staging areas will certainly affect
wetlands and may result in negative impacts to water quality due to increased
surface runoff, temporary destruction of wetlands, and possible permanent loss
of local populations of certain rare plants. The extent of the impacts
associated with the temporary access roads and staging areas will largely
depend on the erosion control and construction methods used. According to the
Corps, the cloth placed underneath the temporary roads will allow all fill
material to be easily removed after construction is complete and the temporary
roads are no longer needed. In areas where temporary access roads and staging
areas are built, the habitat will be heavily compacted and vegetation will be
destroyed. However, revegetation should occur naturally. The Corps has
stated that if after one growing season, the natural vegetation has failed to
begin vegetating the detour areas, the Corps will develop and implement a plan
to revegetate any areas used as temporary access roads and staging areas and
restore these areas back into their pre-disturbance condition (Hugh Heine,
Biologist, Wilmington District Corps, personal communication, August 1993).
In order to maintain access to privately-owned lands adjacent to the project
site, the Corps may be required, according to State and Federal law, to leave
the existing road as access to these privately-owned lands. This problem may
be eliminated if the Corps purchases the lands adjacent to the bridge and
removes the need to maintain access to these areas. The existing road could
then be converted into wetland habitat and used for mitigation. Such a scheme.
would reduce the overall habitat loss associated with the project.
The filling of forested, scrub-shrub, and emergent wetlands for the new road,
approach, and bridge construction will cause the direct loss of feeding,
breeding, and resting habitat for a wide variety of reptiles, amphibians,
birds, and mammals. Wildlife populations would be affected adversely by a
decrease in the availability of some of their habitat requirements in the
project area.
The wetlands lost as a result of this project would contribute to regional and
national trends in cumulative wetland losses. Palustrine forested wetland
_ losses are occurring at a high rate on a national basis. Between the 1950's
and the 19701x, palustrine forested wetlands were reduced by 10.8 percent
(Frayer et al. 1983), and 92 percent of the national losses in palustrine
forested wetlands occurred in the southeastern United States (Hefner and n
3.4 million
1984). Between the mid-1970's and the mid-1980'x, approximately
acres of palustrine forested wetlands were converted, most of which occurred
in the southern portion of the country (Dahl et al. 1991). The palustrine
forested wetlands within the project site are primarily pocosins or pocosin-
related habitats. Pocosins have a long history of human use, and much of
North Carolina's pocosins have been modified by drainage and clearing.
F-4
As indicated earlier, the estuarine emergent wetlands in the study area
represents the lower salinity limit of the estuarine category. That is, this
marsh is only slightly brackish. Tidally influenced freshwater or slightly
brackish marshes in North Carolina are very rare. The filling and excavation
of the marshes'in the project area could result in a significant loss of this
habitat type and'in the loss of habitat for several plant species listed as
species of Special Concern by the State of North Carolina.
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
The amount and types of wetlands which would be filled, excavated, or bridged
(permanently impacted) as a result of Alignments 1, 2, 3A (with culvert), and
3B (with canal relocation) are given in Table 1.
The smallest amount of total, permanent wetland impacts would be achieved by
alignment 3A (6.2 acres). The largest amount of total, wetland impacts would
result from alignment 3B (8.4 acres). Alignments 1 and 2 would result in
intermediate losses of 6.6 and 7.5 acres, respectively. Alignment 1 is
preferred by the Corps.
DISCUSSION AND FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION MEASURES
General
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act states that wildlife resources shall
receive equal consideration and be coordinated with other features of water
resource development programs. Such consideration and coordination should be
made with a view toward the conservation of wildlife resources by preventing
loss of and damage to such resources as well as providing for the development
and improvement of the resources. Planning for conservation measures includes
five specific actions which are applied in a definite sequence. This sequence
of actions constitutes mitigation as defined by the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) and adopted by the Service in its Mitigation Policy (Federal
Register 46(15):7656-7663, January 23, 1981). The five actions are:
1) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or
parts of an action;
2) minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action
or its implementation;
3) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the
affected environment;
4) reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations during the life of the action; and
5) compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute
resources for environments.
The estuarine emergent, palustrine scrub-shrub/emergent, palustrine scrub-
shrub, palustrine scrub-shrub/forested, and palustrine forested wetlands
within the project site are habitats of high value and are relatively scarce
or are becoming scarce on a national and ecoregion basis.- Using the service's
Mitigation Policy, we have determined that the affected habitats constitute
Resource Category 2 habitats. The Service's mitigation goal for habitat in
this category is no net loss of in-kind habitat value. That is, for
unavoidable losses, the Service recommends that losses be compensated by
f replacement of the same kind of habitat value so that the total loss of such
in-kind habitat value will be eliminated.
F-5
Table 1. Amount and type of wetlands and water which will be filled, ,
excavated or bridged as a result of proposed Alignments 1, 2, 3A, and 3B.
Amount of impact fin acres)
Alignment
Western Center Eastern
Wetland Type of Culvert Canal Reloc.
type impact 1 2 3A 3B
Palustrine Forested Wetlands (PF06F; PF01/4B)
Filled 0.7 1.5 1.5 1.5
Excavated 0.8 1.1 0.0 2.2
Bridged 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.5
Total Permanent 1.7 3.1 2.0 4.2
Tempor. Filled 0.4 0.8 1.3 1.3
Scrub-shrub Wetlands (PSS7B; PSS677)
Filled 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Excavated 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3
Bridged 1.4 0.3 0.6 0.6
Total Permanent 1.9 0.5 0.9 0.9
Tempor. Filled 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Marsh (E2EMiP)
Filled 1.2 2.2 1.0 1.0
Excavated 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Bridged 0.5 0.8 1.1 1.1
Total Permanent 1.7 3.0 2.1 2.1
Tempor. Filled 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.4
Scrub-shrub/Marsh Transition (PSS6/EMIT)
Filled 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.4
Excavated 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4
Bridged 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4
Total Permanent 1.3 0.9 1.2 1.2
Tempor. Filled 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.0
Water Tempor. filled 0.2 0.8 1.1 1.1
All Wetlands
Filled 2.9 3.8 2.9 2.9
Excavated 1.3 1.8 0.7 2.9
Bridged 2.4 1.9 2.6 2.6
Total Permanent 6.6 7.5 6.2 8.4
Tempor. Filled 0.8 1.4 1.7 1.7
F-6
Avoidance, Minimization, Rectification, and Reduction
In order to avoid any impacts on Federally-listed threatened and endangered
species, the Corps should create a list of these species which could occur in
the project area. This list should included a brief statement of both the
critical and non-critical habitats used by each species. All potential road
alignments and sites for temporary, construction facilities (e.g.,
borrow/disposal sites, concrete batch plants, access roads) should be surveyed
to determine present usage or potential future usage by Federally-listed
threatened and endangered species. Any proposed road alignment or
construction site which is currently used by a listed species or contains
critical habitat for a listed species should be rejected.
In order to avoid impacts on wetlands, each proposed road alignment and sites
for construction facilities should be surveyed to determine the jurisdictional
wetland status of all land which could be impacted. The survey should
determine the wetland type to be impacted based on the system of Cowardin et
al. (1979) and the acreage of each wetland type to be impacted. These data
should be used to avoid or minimize adverse impacts on wetland habitats.
The Service's Planning Aid Report dated March 1993, recommended that the new
bridge be aligned as close to the existing bridge as possible to minimize
fragmentation of wetlands. This was also recommended by representatives of
the Service, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, and The Nature
Conservancy, at an October 27, 1992 meeting with the Corps. As a result, the
Corps reassessed the alignments and pulled them closer to the existing bridge
than those previously designed. The west alignment was changed from
approximately 460 feet west of the existing bridge to the current 215 feet.
This is the current preferred alternative of the Corps.
The Uniform Relocation Assistance Act (Public Law 91-646) as well as a State
statute, requires that the Corps maintain access to privately-owned lands
adjacent to the project site where access has been provided in the past. This
law may prevent the Corps from converting the old road bed into wetlands
unless the privately-owned lands adjacent to the project site are bought by
the Corps. If the Corps would acquire the land adjacent to the project site,
the old road could be restored into wetland habitats, and the overall impact
of the project would be diminished. The service strongly supports the
conversion of the old road back into wetland habitats. No residences are
located along Highway 94 in the area of the proposed project.
Other ways to minimize impacts involve using careful construction techniques
such as using filter cloth and other erosion control measures, around all
bodies of water and wetlands. Upland sites should be selected as borrow
sites, possibly those around the AIWW associated with maintenance dredging of
the Alligator River-Pungo Land Cut.
Compensation for Unavoidable Losses
compensation is a last step to be taken when all other mitigation steps have
been completed and unavoidable impacts remain. Should the need for
compensation exist after following the proper sequence for mitigation, then
compensation measures will include replacing lost wetland habitat. In this
section the terms compensation and replacement will both refer to the process
of creating new wetland habitat as the final stage of the. mitigation sequence.
Since it is unlikely that all wetland losses can be avoided, the Corps will
need to develop a detailed plan for replacing these losses. This plan must
address the following aspects of wetland replacement:
1. Type of compensation (in-kind vs. out-of-kind)
F-7
2. Amount and value of habitat lost due to the project
3. Amount and present value of land needed to replace losses
4. Location of sites for creation of replacement wetlands
5. Disposition of replacement wetlands
6. Plan for monitoring success of replacement wetlands
As stated above, the permanent loss of Resource Category 2 habitat should be
replaced on an in-kind basis. In-kind replacement may be achieved by: (1)
physical modification of replacement habitat to convert it to the same type
lost; (2) restoration or rehabilitation of previously altered habitat of the
type lost; (3) increased management of similar habitat so that in-kind value
of the lost habitat is replaced; or (4), a combination of these measures.
Out-of-kind replacement is not acceptable for the permanent loss of Resource
Category 2 habitats. Out-of-kind replacement would involve: (1) replacing
lost habitat with a different kind of habitat, even if the necessary number of
habitat units are created; or, (2) increasing management of different habitats
in order to create a specific number of lost habitat units.
The amount of land requiring mitigation will depend on the alignment selected,
the proximity of the new bridge to the existing bridge, the resulting habitat
fragmentation, and the type of mitigation planned. The raw acreage of each
wetland type to be impacted by each proposed alignment has been given in Table
1. The habitat assessment technique developed by the Corps calls for
compensation to be based on habitat units (HU). The HU's lost by each wetland
type is obtained by multiplying acres lost by the overall wetland value of the
type. The calculation of the overall wetland value for each of the three
major wetland communities in the project area is given in Table 2. The
calculation of the total number of HU's lost by each major wetland type for
each proposed alignment is given in Table 3. Alternative 3A (Center alignment
with a culvert) has the smallest loss of habitat units (21.01 HU), and
Alternative 3B (Center alignment, canal relocation) produces the largest loss
(28.01 HU).
There are three communities in the project area which could serve as sites for
replacing wetlands. These are: 1) Disturbed Wetlands - previously logged
areas with 90 percent vegetation removal, but with wetland hydrology and
hydric soil remaining; 2) Prior Converted (PC) Wetlands- wetlands that were
manipulated and farmed prior to December 23, 1985 and thus no longer meet the
three parameters for determining the presence of wetlands: hydric soils,
hydrology, and a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetations; and 3) Farmed
Uplands - farm fields without wetland hydrology, wetland soils, or wetland
vegetation.
The results for the habitat assessment of these three communities are given in
Table 4. As planning proceeds and the Corps's mitigation plans are developed,
they will determine the habitat value of project lands and replacement lands
for the 50-year period following construction and will calculate average
annual habitat units for project lands and for replacement lands. These
figures will then be used to assist in determining necessary mitigation
ratios.
Unavoidable project impacts to wetlands should be replaced near the project
site. As recommended in the Service's Planning Aid Report, the Corps has
proposed using prior-converted (PC) wetlands near Kilkenny, to the north of
Fairfield Bridge, as mitigation sites. Several PC tracts which are presently
used for agriculture are under consideration. Jim Savory, the Refuge Manager
F-8
Table 2. Relative wetland values for forested wetlands, scrub-shrub wetlands, and marshes
at the Fairfield Bridge Project Area, Hyde, County, North Carolina. Relative importance
values (range 0-5) and scaled values (S.V., range 0-5) were assigned by a representative
of the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission. Weighted value (W.V.) in each function category is the product
of the relative importance times the scaled value. The overall wetland value is the total
of all weighted values divided by the total of all relative importance values.
Forested Scrub-shrub
Wetland Relative wetlands wetlands Marsh
function importance S. V. W.V. S.V. W.V. S.V. W V!.
1. Flood conveyance 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
2. Waves and erosion 2 2 4 2 4 3 6
3. Flood storage 3 2 6 3 9 4 12
4. Sediment control 4 3 12 4 16 5 20
5. Fish habitat
a. spawning 3 0 0 0 0 5 15
b. nursery 5 3 15 3 15 5 25
c. commercial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
d. recreational 3 0 0 0 0 2 6
6. Shellfish habitat
a. nursery 3 0 0 0 0 4 12
b. commercial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
c. recreational 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7. Waterfowl habitat
a. nesting 4 3 12 2 8 3 12
b. feeding 4 3 12 3 12 5 20
c. cover 5 3 15 4 20 4 20
8. Wildlife habitat
a. nesting/breeding 5 5 25 5 25 4 20
b. feeding 5 5 25 4 20 5 25
c. cover 5 5 25 5 25 4 20
9. Recreation 2 2 4 0 0 2 4
10. Water supply 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11. Food production 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12. Timber production 1 2 2 0 0 0 0
13. Historical values 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14. Education/research 3 3 9 2 6 4 12
15. Aesthetic values 4 4 16 3 12 4 16
16. Water quality 5 4 20 4 20 5 25
TOTAL 67 203 193 272
•' Overall wetland value 3.03 2.88 4.06
F-9
Table 3. Calculations of habitat units (HU's) which would be permanently lost
by each major wetland type as a result of each proposed alignment alternative
for the Fairfield Bridge Replacement Project. Each habitat unit equals one
unit of relative wetland value times one acre. The calculations of overall
wetland values are given in Table 2.
Type of wetland
Forested Scrub-shrub* Marsh* Total lost
overall wetland
value 3.03 2.88 4.06

Alternative 1
Acres 1.70 2.50 2.30 6.50
HU's 5.15 7.20 9.34 21.69

Alternative 2
Acres 3.10 0.95 3.45 7.50
HU's 9.39 2.74 14.01 26.14

Alternative 3A
Acres 2.00 1.50 2.70 6.20
HUs 6.06 4.32 10.96 21.34

Alternative 3B
Acres 4.20 1.50 2.70 8.40
HUB 12.73 4.32 10.96 28.01
*Acres of scrub-shrub/marsh transitional wetlands were equally divided
between the scrub-shrub and marsh wetland types in this analysis.
F-10
Table 4. Relative wetland values for disturbed/degraded wetlands, prior converted
wetlands, and farmed uplands (three potential mitigation areas at the Fairfield Bridge Project
Area, Hyde County, North Carolina). Relative importance values (range 0-5) were assigned.
by a representative of the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
North Carolina Wildife Resources Commission. Weighted value (W.V.) in each function
category is the product of the relative importance times the scaled value. The overall
wetland value is the total of all weighted values divided by the total of all relative importance
values.
Prior
Disturbed converted Farmed
Wetland Relative wetlands wetlands uplands
function importance S.V. W.V. S. V. W. V. S. V. W.V.
1. Flood conveyance 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
2. Waves and erosion 2 1 2 0 0 0 0
3. Flood storage 3 2 6 1 3 1 3
4. Sediment control 4 2 8 1 4 1 4
5. Fish habitat
a. spawning 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
b. nursery 5 1 5 0 0 0 0
c. commercial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
d. recreational 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Shellfish habitat -
a. nursery 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
b. commercial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'
c. recreational 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7. Waterfowl habitat
a. nesting 4 1 4 0 0 0 0
b. feeding 4 1 4 1 4 1 4
c. cover 5 1 5 0 0 0 0
8. Wildlife habitat
a. nesting/breeding 5 1 5 0 0 0 0
b. feeding 5 1 5 2 10 2 10
c. cover 5 1 5 2 10 2 10
9. Recreation 2 1 2 1 - 2 1 2
10. Water supply 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11. Food production 0 0 0 5 0 5 0
12. Timber production 1 2 2 0 0 0 0
13. Historical values 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14. Education/research 3 1 3' 1 3 1 3
15. Aesthetic values 4 1 4 1 4 1 4
16. Water quality 5 2 10 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 67 71 41 40
Overall wetland value 1.06 0.61 0.60
F-11
of Pocosin Lakes NWR assisted the Corps in selecting preliminary, potential
mitigation sites that would be suitable for donation to the Refuge. These
potential mitigation sites border the Alligator River and Pocosin Lakes NWR.
Mitigation would involve purchasing the PC land, restoring the hydrology
through use of flashboard risers, planting of appropriate wetland vegetation,
monitoring, and donation to Pocosin Lakes NWR. The sites being considered
range from approximately 3 to 5 miles away from the project site (Hugh Heine,
Biologist, Corps Wilmington District, personal communication, August 1993).
Other possibilities are agricultural lands to the east of the project site
adjacent to the Frying Pan Unit of Pocosin Lakes NWR, possibly lands within
Roper Island (Figure 3), and or lands that could compliment the State's
existing Game Lands.
The North Carolina Nature conservancy has indicated that they may be willing
to consider combining their land with replacement sites to create a large,
contiguous tract of wetland habitat which could be donated to a Service Refuge
or State Game Lands. Therefore, any potential replacement wetland site which
adjoins The Nature Conservancy tract would be extremely desirable.
Regarding the disposition of replacement wetlands, it is important that these
areas have some legal protection in order to insure that they continue to
provide fish and wildlife habitat. All replacement wetland sites should be
purchased for subsequent donation or otherwise permanently protected for
conservation purposes by the Corps. After initial creation/restoration
/enhancement, these areas should be donated to The Nature Conservancy, Pocosin
Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, or the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission.
Habitat replacement should involve a comprehensive monitoring plan designed to
determine the success of the mitigation project. Success criteria including
both biotic and abiotic factors should be developed and approved by the
Service and other State and Federal resource agencies and monitoring should
continue until the success criteria are met. Modifications to the mitigation
plan should be made along the way if the monitoring indicates that the
mitigated lands do not have the characteristics of or are not functioning as
natural systems.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Service offers the following recommendations:
1. The Service recommends that the selected alignment have the least impact
on wetlands in the project area. The selected alignment should also produce
the minimal amount of habitat fragmentation. This could be achieved by
placing the new alignment as close as possible to the existing alignment.
2. During construction all necessary measures should be taken to prevent any
increase in erosion and the flow of sediment into nearby wetlands and
waterways. If an on-site concrete batch plant is required, containment
ditches and/or settling ponds should be used to prevent the large amounts of
water runoff from causing erosion and increasing sediment discharge.
3. After construction all temporary construction sites should be restored to
their pre-construction condition. Part of this effort should include
restoring natural contours, contouring the bottom of excavated sites to create
depressions similar to those naturally occurring in the area, and reseeding
exposed ground with plant species suitable for the area.
4. The Service considers the wetlands in the project area to have high value
for fish and wildlife resources. These areas constitute Resource Category 2
habitats, and the Service recommends that replacement be on an in-kind,
F-12
•,,?-
?, , w
4-3 '0
r-A
1 1 s \ w r- 4J
t-I
C14 4-3
41
? • . yam'?,•',•,• •. •• ?:.? r ? ?: ? •t' .'r "t
is ? • • ... ,7'?- 'C:?.•`.'•i y ?: •?::•r,:?~...ti .. :?..:;:? ? ?. •`?: va O
0 a4
CL)
44
41
72 41
44
-4 0
'1 $4
U Vt. zs a
0 co
)
10
-A VO
O Q)
4 ! U 'rI
zo 3 U ! \o l,. ow
w.
Q t O gex O
ZP $4
-r4 0
w w
F-13
habitat value basis. If the Corps proposes to mitigate out-of-kind, the Final
Environmental Impact Statement should fully justify and present the rationale
for such action.
5. Mitigation site(s) should be located as close to the project site as
possible. The Corps has proposed replacing unavoidable wetland losses by
restoring prior-converted agricultural fields north of the project site near
Kilkenny or similar farm fields between NC 94 and Alligator River. Both areas
are in the ecoregion of the project and are acceptable to the service.
6. The Corps should acquire or otherwise permanently protect for conservation
purposes all mitigation sites. The sites should be protected in perpetuity
through donation or easement to the North Carolina Nature Conservancy, Pocosin
Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, or the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
commission.
7. The production of replacement wetlands should be based on a detailed
mitigation plan developed by the Corps. This plan should contain: (1) both
short-term and long-term success criteria for both biotic and abiotic elements
of the desired habitat with a schedule for the accomplishment of each
criteria, (2) a monitoring program to periodically evaluate progress toward
the fulfillment of success criteria, and (3) a contingency plan which gives
the procedures to be followed in the event that success criteria are not
accomplished. This plan should be submitted to the Service and other Federal
and State regulatory-review agencies for review and approval.
8. The Corps should explore ways of disposing of the old bridge in a manner
which will enhance fisheries resources. One way to achieve this enhancement
would be to donate the old structure to the State of North Carolina for use as
an artificial reef.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND SERVICE POSITION
Based on the high habitat value of the project area, the relatively
undisturbed quality of the wetlands in the immediate project area, and the
fact that the project will impact lands belonging to The Nature Conservancy,
the Service believes that the impacts associated with the bridge replacement
project will be significant. The Service believes that the new bridge should
be built as close as possible to the existing bridge in order to reduce
impacts including fragmentation of wetlands. The Service is pleased that the
Corps has moved the alignments closer to the existing bridge than was
previously proposed. The Corps should assess the feasibility of converting
the existing road into wetland habitat following construction of the new road.
The Corps should take all possible steps to avoid and minimize impacts to
wetlands and lands belonging to The Nature Conservancy. If unavoidable
wetland losses will occur, the Corps must develop a plan to compensate for
these losses. Because this plan is an integral part of the overall project,
the Service believes that this plan should be made available for Federal and
State regulatory-review agency examination at the earliest possible time.
Compensation for all unavoidable, permanent, wetland losses should be made by
replacing the wetland communities on an in-kind basis. This type of
compensation would replace lost wetlands with areas of similar structure,
functions, and values. The wetland habitat assessment technique developed by
the Corps can be used to determine the amount of land needed for mitigation,
but this habitat unit system should not be used to allow excess mitigation of
one wetland type to compensate for different wetland types (i. e., out-of-kind
mitigation). If the Corps proposes out-of-kind mitigation, the reasons for
this decision should be justified. Compensation may include restoring
disturbed wetlands or former wetlands near the project site and donating them
to the North Carolina Nature Conservancy, Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife
F-14
Refuge, or the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission for use as Game
Lands. Creation/restoration/enhancement of each wetland type should be based
on a series of success criteria which include both biotic and abiotic factors.
Each criterion should have a series of intermediate goals and a single final
goal. The mitigation plan should establish a time period in which each
intermediate goal and the final goal should be achieved. The mitigation plan
should include a comprehensive monitoring plan, approved by the Service and
other State and Federal resource agencies. The monitoring plan should state
how progress toward each intermediate and final goal will be evaluated. The
mitigation plan should state the procedures which the Corps will follow if
significant problems arise in meeting success criteria.
The donation of the existing bridge to the State of North Carolina for use as
an artificial reef is a possible enhancement measure to aid fisheries
resources. The Service recommends that the feasibility of this transfer be
explored.
LITERATURE CITED
American Fisheries Society. 1980. A list of common and scientific
names of fishes from the United States and Canada. 4th ed. American
Fisheries Society, Washington, DC. 174 pp.
Ash, A.N., C.B. McDonald, E.S. Kane, and C.A. Pories. 1983. Natural and modified
pocosins: literature synthesis and management options. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Division of Biological Services, Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS-83/04.
Banks, R.C., R.W. McDiarmid, A.L. Gardner. (eds.). 1987. Checklist of
vertebrates of the United States, the U.S. territories, and Canada. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Resource Publication 166. 79 pp.
Copeland, B.J. and S.R. Riggs. 1984. The ecology of the Pamlico River, North
Carolina: an estuarine profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-
82/06. 83 pp.
Cowardin, L.W., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. Laroe. 1979. Classification
of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of
the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services,
Washington, D.C. 131 pp.
Dahl, T.E., C.E. Johnson, W.E. Prayer. 1991. Status and trends of
wetlands in the conterminous United States mid 1970's to mid 1980'x. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 28 pp.
Prayer, W.E., T.J. Monahan, D.C. Bowden, and F.A. Graybill. 1983. Status and
trends of wetlands and deepwater habitats in the conterminous United States,
1950's to 1970'x. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
Geise, G.H., H. Wilder, and G. Parker, Jr. 1979. Hydrology of major
estuaries and sounds in North Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey, Raleigh, NC.
Water Resources Investigations 79-46. 175 pp.
Hefner, J. and J. Brown. 1984. Wetland trends in the southeastern
United States. Wetlands 4:1-11.
Hyde County. 1986. Hyde County Land Use Plan. Swanquarter, North Carolina.
Hyde County. 1992. Hyde County Land Use Plan. Swanquarter, North Carolina.
F-15
LeBlond, R. 1992. Survey and inventory of the Alligator River
Preserve, Hyde County, North Carolina. Report to The North Carolina Chapter
of The Nature Conservancy, Carrboro, North Carolina. 22 pp.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., C.C. Frost, and J.O. Fussell III. 1992. Regional
inventory for critical natural areas, wetland ecosystems, and endangered
species habitats of the Albermarle Pamlico Estuarine Region: Phase II Report.
Albermarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study Report No. 92-07.
Lynch, J.M. and S.L. Peacock. 1982. Natural areas inventory of Hyde
County, North Carolina. Coastal Energy Impact Program Report No. 28, Office
of Coastal Management, Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development, Raleigh, North Carolina. 211 pp.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The freshwater fishes of North Carolina. The
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Raleigh, North Carolina.
McDonald, C.B., A.N. Ash. 1981. Natural areas inventory of Tyrrell County,
North Carolina. Report for the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Coastal'Energy Impact Program Report No S. Office of Coastal Management,
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development.
Raleigh, North Carolina. 100 pp.
McDonald, C.B., A.N. Ash, and E.S. Kane. 1983. Pocosins: a changing
wetland resource. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Biological
4J Services. Washington D.C. FWS/OBS-83/32. 22 pp.
Otte, L.J. 1981. origin, development and maintenance of the pocosin
wetlands of North Carolina. N.C. Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development, Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Reed, P.B. Jr. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in
wetlands: Southeast (Region 2). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biol. Rep.
88(26.2). 124 pp.
Sharitz, R. and J. Gibbons. 1982. The ecology of southeastern shrub bogs (nocsins)
and Carolina bays: a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Division of Biological Services, Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS - 82/04, 93 pp.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1992. Final environmental impact
statement - Hobucken bridge replacement study. Wilmington District Corps of
Engineers, Wilmington, north Carolina.
. 1990. Final environmental impact statement - Core Creek
bridge replacement study. Wilmington District Corps of Engineers, Wilmington,
North Carolina.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1982.
Soil maps for Hyde County. Swanquarter, North Carolina.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Final Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act report for the Core Creek bridge replacement project.
Raleigh Field Office, Raleigh, North Carolina.
"990. Environmental assessment for the proposed Pocosin
Lakes rational Wildlife Refuge - a wildlife habitat preservation proposal in
Tyrell, Hyde and Washington Counties, North Carolina. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Atlanta, Georgia.
. 1992. Final Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act report for
the Hobucken bridge replacement study. Raleigh Field Office. Raleigh, North
Carolina.
F-16
F-18
APPENDIX 1: Soils of the Fairfield Bridge Replacement Project Area (Source
- U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Hyde County Soi
Maps, 1982). See Attached Descriptions
APPENDIX 1: (Continued) Key to Soils of the Fairfield Bridge Replacement
Proiect Area !
Code Description
38 - DOROVAN MUCK -very poorly drained soils on floodplains, forming in
thick deposits of highly decomposed organic material. They consist of layers
of muck greater than 51 inches thick with moderate permeability. The seasonal
water table ranges from 1.0 foot above the surface to 0.5 foot below and this
soil is subject to frequent flooding.
53 - LAFITTE MUCKY PEAT - very poorly drained soils occurring in brackish
marshes with over 51 inches of organic materials over-fluid clayey mineral
layers. Permeability is moderately rapid and the high water table is 1.0 foot
above to 0.5 foot below the surface.
60 - PONZER MUCK - very poorly drained soil occurring in slight depressions
and formed in organic deposits 16 to 51 inches thick over loamy material.
Permeability is moderately slow to slow and the seasonal high water table is at
or near the surface. The soil is subject to rare flooding.
71 - PUNGO MUCK - very poorly drained soil with a well decomposed organic
surface layer over loamy soil materials. It has slow permeability and the•
seasonal high water table ranges from 0 to 1.0 foot under the surface between
November and April.
90 - UDORTHENTS - loamy soils that have been altered by digging, grading or
filling to the extent that individual-soil types can no longer be recognized.
Usually in borrow areas, fill areas, or landfills.
F-19
Appendix 2: National Wetlands In entory (NWI) Map of the wetlands in the immediate
vicinity of the Fairfield Bridge Replacement Project Area, Hyde County, North
Carolina. The key to wetland designation codes is given on the-following page. The
"U" code designates an upland area (nonwetland).
i t<'_'-rirr,
..r
PF01/4G- - _ - - ' - i - -? .8. -
r- _ -
1 ^ ' F2EM1P
A !'31F . ' . - •, . _ _ T" pFd4/18y -`.. - j
0 / - . r •. -
PF IF F04
__??cc,, T • %p-. 'its ? -?_ ;, d•_ ? = t_- - O? ? ' •
LL. - P 4 _
FPO
PFO(PP
PM
Sb _
. RIO
Py:.?. - - s
eml
F04
DF04,i 4.
.,.?=•-?---`- - .. . - P51?aQ ,? U a '1 •. _ '' 553•. •. _ -y'- .
ai.fi d P6MfB
Br e ZJ 4-
FO A
EMI n....'-
51-
epm
41
:._.: ,111 y '..< T. '.,. ? -."--? ?:I•-` - ,_ _
F-20
Appendix 2: (Continued) Rey to National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Map of the
Fairfield Bridge Replacement Project Area.
NWI Code Description
E2EM1P Estuarine, intertidal, emergent persistent, irregularly flooded
ElOWLx Estuarine, subtidal, open water, excavated
ElOWLd Estuarine, subtidal, open water, ditched
PEM1F Palustrine, emergent, persistent, semipermanently flooded
PSS7B Palustrine, scrub-shrub, evergreen, saturated
PSS6/7 Palustrine, scrub-shrub, deciduous/evergreen
PSS3/4 B Palustrine, scrub-shrub, broad-leaved evergreen/needle-leaved
evergreen, saturated
PSS3/EM1 B Palustrine, forested broad-leaved evergreen/emergent
persistent, saturated
PSS3/EM1 F Palustrine, scrub-shrub broad-leaved evergreen/emergent
persistent, semipermanently flooded
PSS6/EM1 T Palustrine, scrub-shrub deciduous/emergent persistent,
semipermanently tidally influenced
PF01B Palustrine, forested broad-leaved deciduous, saturated
PFOlc Palustrine, forested broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally
flooded
PF04A Palustrine, forested, needle-leaved evergreen, temporarily
flooded
PF04B Palustrine, forested, needle-leaved evergreen, saturated
PF04C Palustrine, forested, needle-leaved evergreen, seasonally
flooded
PF06F Palustrine, forested, deciduous, semipermanently flooded
PF01/4 A Palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous/needle-leaved
evergreen, temporarily flooded
PF01/4 B Palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous/needle-leaved
evergreen, saturated
PF04/1 C Palustrine, forested, needle-leaved evergreen/broad leaved
deciduous, seasonally flooded
PF04/SS1 B Palustrine, forested, needle-leaved evergreen/scrub-shrub
broad-leaved deciduous, saturated
PF04/SS3 B Palustrine, forested, needle-leaved evergreen/scrub-shrub
broad-leaved evergreen, saturated
POWHx Palustrine, open water, permanently flooded, excavated
i
F-21
Appendix 3: Plant Species Found Within The Nature conservancy's Tract of
Land at the Fairfield Bridge Project Site (LeBlond 1992).
(^) - unconfirmed identification. !
- see notes at end of list when asterisk precedes name-.
1 = roadside clearing (shoulder/narrow marsh/Re d Maple --one)
•2== Tidal FreS.hwater Marsh (including aquatics)
S = Pond Pine--Vax Myrtle "transition harsh"
1 = Tidal Cypress--Cum Swanp
C: = possible county record (no county dot in P.adfOre., et al.,
lnJ-°.) -.
V = voucher specimen
S = sne;^ial status species
1 2 3 4 C V S
Ac:er rubrum X -- ;: --
Amaranthus cannabinus 3: X =-
Ammania latifolia (=A. teres) F ti x.
Andropogon glaucopsis
:t•Andropogon spp. 3:
Arundinaria tecta == %= --
Aster subulatus x 3:
A onopus furcatus
Paccharis halimif olia
Bacopa monnieri
Camasis radicans. 3: V.
Care:: glaucescens X
Centella asiatica 3:
Chasmanthium laxum v
Cladium Jamaicense -- --
Clethra alnifolia
Cuscuta gronovii = -- --
Cyperus erythrorhizos 3=
Cyperus f i t icinus X x 3:
•VCyperus iria == 3: X
Cyperus odoratus y 3:
Cyperus polystachyos? var. texensis x
Cyperus retrorsus
Cyperus strigosus x
Decodon verticillatus
Pichanthelium acuminatum var. acuminatum x
(=Panicum lanuSinosum)
Dichauthelium commutatum (=Panicum c.) x
Dichnnthelium dic-hotomum var. dichotomum x X.
' =Panicum d.)
Dichanthelium scoparium (=Panicum s.) x
Digitaria ischaemum var. ischaemum .. --
Diodi.a virginiana
I:Diplachne maritima X -r. -- 3:
L•chinoc.hloa cruegalli var. crusgalli :z x
Eleocharis albida
Eteor_-haris cellul-osa
i'Eleccharis fallax (?) 3:
Eleocharis f la vesoens
F-22
1 2 4 C V
Eleocharis parvula
r
E 1 eocliar i s tubercul osa x

lEleochai-is sp. _
x

TEragrostis elliottii x
Erechtites hieracifolia x
Eupatorium capillifolium ;:
Eupatorium coelestinum x
Eupatorium pilosum ,. v
Eupatorium semiserratum ;. _ ,.
Eupatorlum serotinum
Euthamia tenuifolia
Festltca rubra var. rubra
FimbrJstylis autumnalis
Itydrocotyle umbellate x ;, x
Ile;. Slabra
.
IFsomosa sagittata Y. Y.
Iva frutescens x
Juncus roemerianus x
I.Juniperus virginiana .11
Kosteletskya virginica

Lemnaceae sp. Menna sp. ^) ., x
,.
LJlaeopsis chinensis
Lindernia dubia '
Ligiiidambar styraciflua
Lobelia cardinalis .

Lobelin puberula 1:
;t
Ludwigia decurrens
Lythrum lineare .,
Mikania scandens x x
I:Murdannia nudiflora (=Aneilem-A n.) ,; x x
Xvrica cerifera var. cerifera x ;: }_
:}' Myr i ophy l l um sp. (?) ._

Osmunda cinnamomea x x
x x
Osmunda regalis-var. spectabilis x } ;:
Panicum rigidulum var. pubescens' x x
Panicum verrucosum
Panicum virgatum var. virgatum x
Paspalum floridanum var. floridanum x

Paspalurn laeve var. pilosum x
V.
Paspalurn urvillei ;:
iPa_spalum vaginatum x ,.
Peltandra virginica
Perssa palustris x x X.
tPhragmites auttralis (=P. communis) x ;.

Phyla lanceolata C=Lippin 1.) _
x

Pinus serotina X

Pluchea foetida x ..
Plu,-,hea purpurascens x ;.
PolySonum opelousanum var. adenocaly;: x
tPolycoituin punctatum var. punctatum x x

F.he Ja mariana var. mariana x
P.hexia nashi i :`
F-23
1 ? 3 4 V
r
Rhynchospora caduca
Rhynchospora gracilenta x ,.
Rosa palustris X ..
Sacciolepis striata x x
Sagittaria falcata „ X „
Scirpus pungens (=S. americanus) ,. X
Scirpus robustus „
Scirpus validus
Setaria genieulata V.
Setaria glauca ..
Smi la;, gl auca
Smila;: laurifolia ., ,.
Solidago fistulosa
Solidago sempervirens X
Spartina patens „
Taxodium distichum
Thelypteris palustris var. pubescent ;:
Toxicodendron radicars „ ;: a ;: ..
Triadenum virginicum (=HypericuTn v.) ;:
Triglochin striata
Typha anzustifolia
*Utricul .ria rnacrorhiza (=U. vulaaris) :; x ,
Woodwardia virginica ,. ._ ,.
SPECIES- NOTE:
Ardronozon spp. Vegetative plants seer. in Pond Pine/Wax Myrtle
"transition marsh," either two species or two varieties cf one
species.
Cyperus iris. Introduced from Eurasia. :=ten only along HC 94,
but could show up along edge of river and tidal crEeks.
Diplar. hne maritinz. First discovered in North Carolina in
Curritu-_-h Co., 1.991. This is the second known state site.
Fernald (1950) describes the distribution of this.-species as
"local," indicating rarity and/or scattered populations
throitShout, the range. Known along the coast from New Hampshire
to South Carolina; also at inland lakes in New York. Coastal
Plain iTatural Heritage programs should be contacted to determine
status of this species.` Only two individuals were seen during
this survey, both oi, the south shore of the Alligator River east
of hic;hwav NC 94.
Eleocharis fallax (?). Only vegetative- plants seen, but rhi=o=s!,
,
culm and sheath characters most closely mztc•h this species.
E?eocharis sU_ Plants ve:etative with thict (2.5 ii,m) Ycl ?oc?
culMS,
fleshy
stlb-truncate Sheath siu-wni ;. withoiut mucro, and this~l:,
rY?icoiaes; .??i] Tins 1 at. JF_i-2..14 node of the rhiioire, t.I,e randes
1.5-3.5 cu, These cl arac:ters do not readily 1natc•h kno,,ni
species from the region.
r
Erap,rostis elliot.tii. Regarded as rare in Radford, et al.
(1968), with only 4 county records (including Hyde). Fo-sibly
overlooked, but this is the first time I have seen this species,
in North Carolina. Should be recommended for state Watch List
(at least).
Juniperuz virziniana. Only veg,Etative <non-fertile) plants seen;
possibly var. silicicola.
Murdannia nudiflora. Native of Asia, weedy, likes spoil banks;
possibly introduced along ICW. Only known from New Hanover Co.
in North Carolina in Radford, et-al.. Seen along shoulder of NC,
94.
Myriophyllum sp (?). Possibly Ceratophyllum sp., but leaf
structure more closely resembles Myriophyllum; either genus would
be a new county dot in Radford, et al., if not a county record.
Paspalum vaginatum. Synonymiced with P. distichum in K rtesz and
Kartesz (1080), but appearing _on N. C. Watcb List. In the two
N.C. populations I have seen, the spikelets are glabrous:
(=va7inatum) and 2.5-3 mm long (=distichum).
Phracmites australis (=P. communis). Only 2 small colonies (less-
than 50 cul.ms each) seen along river west of VIC 94; should be
monitored for population changes, especially because of presum=-d
changes in the salinity/freshwater ratio broucht about by ICW.
Buyer beware!
Polygonum punctatum var. piincthtum. Plants from Hyde and
Carteret Cos. (and probably other coastal c.os.) have glandular-•
punctate ocreae, ocreolae, peduncles, and upper stems, as well as
calyces. This may represent an intergradient e::treme, or perhaps
it amounts to something taxonomically.
11tricularia macrorhiza. Vegetative plants only found. Pozzibly
11. gewiniscapa (even rarer), but leaf pattern and:trap size (2
msn) point to macrarhi: a.
F-25
Appendix 4: Significant :atural Areas identified by the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program Near the Fairfield Bridge Replacement Project Site.
(Information from LeGrand et al. 1992, Lynch and Peacock 1982, and McDonald
and Ash 1981)
'i t '`• .• pia ? ?'?
LW l'
r.f ? 7t J . / tt
C:' stt J uu
1
?i yL CAPE17.YE
BAY !!I
0...r ruo. t-r..oo! V s-::a, x. t
L"M L=
!
°r.
C
..,..? o
KEY
1 - New Lake Fork Pocosin; 2 - Roper Island;
3 - Alligator River Swan Creek Lake Swamp Forest;
4 - Upper Alligator River Marsh;
5 - Upper Alligator River Pocosin.
F-26
TAKE ?
United States Department of the Interior AMERICA
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE •??
Ecological Services
Post Office Box 83726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
February 23, 1994
Colonel George L. Cajigal
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Colonel Cajigal:
This constitutes the Service's Final Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
Report for the Fairfield Bridge Replacement Study, Hyde County, North
Carolina. This report identifies fish and wildlife resources located in
the project area, describes the various project alternatives, and
identifies the potential effects of the various study alternatives on these
resources. This report also provides recommendations and information on
mitigation measures necessary to compensate for any unavoidable wetland
losses. It is provided in accordance with Section 2(b) of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667) and
our FY 93 Transfer Funding Agreement and Scope of Work.
In preparation of this report, we coordinated with the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, The Nature Conservancy, the National Marine
Fisheries Service, and the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management.
A copy of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources commission's letter of
Concurrence is a part of this report.
The service appreciates this opportunity to provide this report. Technical
questions on it should be directed to the attention of Howard Hall, the
biologist who is handling this project.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this report.
Sincerely yours,
v ? K?
L.K. Mike Gantt
Field Supervisor
F-27
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
October 6, 1993
Mrs. L K: Mike Gantt
USDI-Fish & Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Fvaleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Dear Mrs. Gantt:
Biologists on our staff have completed their review of the Service's Draft
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report for the Fairfield Bridge Replacement
Study, Hyde County, North Carolina. The report is well written and
comprehensive. It appropriately identifies fish and wildlife species that could be
affected by the project and provides sound recommendations for avoiding or
minimizing impacts. From the information provided and our knowledge of the
project area, it appears that an alignment as close to the existing bridge as
possible would be the least environmentally damaging. The purpose of this
letter is to advise you that the Wildlife Resources Commission fully concurs with
findings and recommendations of the report.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this report. If we
can provide further assistance, please call on us.
Sincerely,
11.
?t 4.vt
13.
Richard B. Hamilton
Assistant Director
cc: David Yow, Piedmont Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
Pete Komegay, District 1 Fisheries Biologist
David Rowe, District 1 Wildlife Biologist
0?
8 i'go
F-28
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Final Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report refers to the U.S.- Army
Corps of Engineers' Fairfield Bridge Replacement project in Hyde County, North
Carolina. It is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667).
The Corps has proposed to replace the existing one-lane, swing-span bridge
with a two-lane, high level, fixed-span bridge providing a 65 foot vertical
clearance over the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW). The Corps is
currently considering one alignment to the west of the existing bridge (11),
one "center alignment" located only 65 feet to the east of the existing bridge
(02), and one further to the east involving either construction of a culvert
(03a) or roadside canal relocation (13b) to maintain flow through roadside
canals. A center alignment located in the same position as the existing
bridge would require rerouting traffic approximately 100 miles and thus, was
considered unfeasible by the Corps. Alternative 01 is preferred by the Corps.
Lands to the east and west of the existing bridge on the northern side of the
AIWW are part of an approximately 394 acre tract belonging to the North
Carolina Nature Conservancy which will be affected by the proposed project.
The study area is characterized by an abundance of forested, scrub-shrub, and
emergent wetlands in the project area.
A concern with the project is the scarcity of upland borrow sites and the lack
of upland areas where the new approach and bridge pilings could be placed.
The project will impact surrounding wetlands and aquatic habitats. The degree
to which wetland habitats will be affected will depend partially on the
proximity of new alignments to the existing bridge and the resulting degree of
fragmentation of wetland habitats. The Corps should recognize that the
habitat in the area is of prime fish and wildlife value and any impacts to
these habitats will represent significant losses and will require substantial
mitigation.
The Corps should fully assess the possibility of converting the old road back
into wetlands. In order to do this, the Corps may have to acquire the
privately owned lands adjacent to the existing road so that they would not
have to maintain access to the landowners as required by State and Federal
law.
Compensation for unavoidable impacts should be made by acquiring degraded
habitats which were once wetlands and restoring the wetland hydrology and
vegetation. The land should then be donated to The Nature Conservancy, a
Refuge (Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge is recommended), or to the
State of North Carolina for use as a gameland. A mitigation site close to the
project site is recommended. Restoration and preservation is preferred over
preservation only.
Recommended potential mitigation sites include agricultural fields to the
north of the project site in the vicinity of Kilkenny, agricultural lands to
the east of the project site near the Frying Pan Unit of Pocosin Lakes NWR or
lands within Roper Island to the east of the project site. The Nature
Conservancy has indicated that they would be willing to consider donating
their tract of land to a Refuge or Gameland in combination with mitigation
lands so that a large contiguous area would receive protection.
Compensation for wetland losses should involve implementation of a
comprehensive monitoring plan, approved by the Service and other State and
Federal resource agencies. The monitoring plan should involve development of
success criteria and monitoring should continue until the success criteria are
met and the wetland is functioning as a natural system. Modifications to the
F-29
mitigation plan should be made in the future if the created or restored
wetlands do not have the characteristics of and are not functioning as natural
systems.
F-30
TABLE OF COFTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUKKARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Purpose, Scope, and Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Related Studies.and Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . 2
General Description . . . . . . . . 2
Soils s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Population and Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
EVALUATION METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
EXISTING FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
General Habitat Description . . .. . . . . 6
Palustrine Forested and Scrub-Shrub Wetlands 6
Palustrine and Estuarine Marshes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Deepwater Habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Natural Areas `-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
New Lake Fotk Pocosin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Rover Island . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Alligator River Swan Creek Lake Swamp Forest . . . . . . . . 11
The Upper Alligator River Marshes and Forest . . . . . . . . . . 12
The Upper Alligator River Pocosin • . . . . . . 12
Federally-listed Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species . . . 12
FUTURE OF PROJECT AREA WITHOUT THE PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Alignment 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Alignment 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Alignment 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES . . . . . 16
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17•
DISCUSSION AND FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION MEASURES . . . . . . . . . 17
General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Avoidance, Minimization, Rectification, and Reduction . . . . . . . 19
Compensation for Unavoidable Losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND SERVICE POSITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
TABLES
Table 1: Amount and type of wetlands and water which will be filled,
excavated, or bridged as a result of proposed alignments 1, 2, 3A,
and 3B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Table 2: Relative wetland values for forested wetlands, scrub-shrub
wetlands, and marshes at the Fairfield Bridge Replacement Project
! Area, Hyde County, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
F-31
Table 3: Calculation of habitat units (HU's) which would be permanently lost
by each major wetland type as a result of each proposed alignment !
alternative for the Fairfield Bridge Replacement Project, Hyde
County, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Table 4. Relative wetland values for disturbed/degraded wetlands, prior
converted wetlands, and farmed uplands, three potential mitigation
areas at-the Fairfield Bridge Project Area, Hyde County, North
Carolina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
FIGURES
Figure 1: Map of Fairfield Bridge Replacement Project Site, Hyde County,
North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Figure 2: Map of potential alignments considered for Fairfield Bridge
Replacement, Hyde County, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . 15
Figure 3: Man of Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge boundary and