19970187 Ver 1_Complete File_19970227

IL
f 'wsa

STATE OF Noimi CAROLINA QJ?
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
)Anlt:s B. HUNI JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRFIT jR.
Gow1kNoli P.O. BOX 25201. RALI:IGI 1• N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
January 31, 1997
RECEIVED
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers FEB 2 71997
Regulatory Field Office
1'. O. Box 1890 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Wilmington. NC 28402-1890
AThN: Mr. Cliff Winefordner
Chief, Southern Section
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Duplin County. Replacement of Bridge No. 14 over Limestone Creek and
Bri4e No. 31 over Limestone Creek Overflow on NC I 11. TIP No. B-
2130, State Project No. 8.1241701. Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-
111(2).
Attached for your information is a copy of the categorical exclusion action classification
form and the natural resources technical report for the subject project. The project is
being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in
accordance with 23 C'IJR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an ,
individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with
33 CFR 330 Appendix A (13-23) issued December 13, 1996, by the Corps of Engineers.
The provisions of Section 330.4 and appendix A (C) of these regulations Will be followed
in the construction project.
We anticipate that 401 General Water Quality Certification No. ')745 (Categorical
l;xcluslon) will apply to this project, and are providing a copy of le Cl., dOCLI111C tile
North Carolina Department of I•.nvironment, 1 Icalth and Natural Resou?'ccs, Division of
Water Quality, for their review.
•z
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Michael
Wood at [phone] extension 306.
Sincerel ,
1-I. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
cc: w/ attachment
Mr. Scott McLendon, COE. NCDOT Coordinator
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachments
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.1., Roadway Design
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Don Morton. P.E.. I-Iigllway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins. P.E.. I lydraulics
Mr. D. J. Bowers, P.E., Division 3 Engineer
Ms. Jeff Ingham, Planning & Environmental

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICA'T'ION FORM
TIP Project No. B-2130
State Project No. 8.1241701
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-111(2)
A. Project Description :
The purpose of this project is to replace Bridge No's. 14 and 31 on NC 1 11 over
Limestone Creek and Overflow in Duplin County. The new structure to replace
Bridge No. 14 will be a 3 @ 3.0 meter by 2.4 meter (10 foot by 8 foot) reinforced
concrete box culvert (RCBC). The new structure to replace Bridge No. 31 will be a
bridge approximately 37 meters (120 feet) in length and 9.1 meters (30 feet) in width.
Both replacements will be located at approximately the same location and roadway
elevations as the existing bridges. The travelway on the bridge will be two 3.7 meter
(12 foot) lanes with 1 meter (3 foot) shoulders. Approach work will consist of
resurfacing and widening the roadway to two 3.7 meter (12 foot) lanes with 2.4 meter
(8 foot) shoulders, including 0.6 meter (2 foot) paved shoulders on each side, and
installing guardrail where appropriate. This approach work will extend from
approximately 91 meters (300 feet) south of Bridge No. 14 to approximately 122
meters (400 feet) north of Bridge No. 31. The total project length will be
approximately 396 meters (1300 feet). Cars will be detoured along NC 241 and SR
1700 during construction. Due to weight restrictions on Bridge No. 155 on SR 1700,
truck traffic will be detoured along NC 241 and NC 11.
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 31 has a sufficiency rating of 4 out of 100. The structure is a two
lane bridge with 7.7 meters (25.4 feet) of bridge roadway width. Bridge No. 14 has a
sufficiency rating of 46.7 out of 100. The structure is a two lane bridge with 7.7
meters (25.4 feet) of bridge roadway width. Modern design standards specify a
bridge 9.1 meters (30 feet) in width. Neither bridge is currently posted with a weight
restriction. The "Do-nothing" alternate is not practical, requiring the eventual closing
of the road as the existing bridge completely deteriorates. Rehabilitation of the
existing deteriorating bridge is neither practical nor economical. For these reasons,
Bridge No's. 31 and 14 need to be replaced.
14
C: Proposed Improvements:
The improvements which apply to the project are circled:
Type I Improvements
Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing pavement
(3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveways pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening ( less than one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/ or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing hazards
and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
O Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks

c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting ( no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/ or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
Approvals for changes in access control.
Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is consistent with existing zoning and located on or near a
street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehicle
traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are required
and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of passenger
shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements ) when
located in a commercial area or other high activity center in which there is
adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is consistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3 (b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in alignment IOC planned
construction projects, which may be required in the NEPA process. No
project development on such land may proceed until the NI--'PA process has
been completed.
14
D. Special Project Information
Environmental Commitments:
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts. All practical Best Management Practices (BMP's)
will be included and properly maintained during project construction.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the
discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States."
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401
Water Quality General Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Army Corps
of Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23.
Estimated Costs:
Construction $ 900,000
Right of Way $ 33,000
Total $ 933,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 2,000 VPD
Year 2018 - 4,100 VPD
TTST - 2%
DUAL - 3 %
Proposed Typical Roadway Section:
Travelway - two 3.7 meter (12 foot) lanes
Shoulders - 2.4 meter (8 foot) shoulders including 0.6 meter
(2 foot) paved shoulders
Design Speed:
100 km/h (60 mph)
Functional Classification:
Rural Major Collector
Division Office Comments:
The Division 3 Engineer recommends replacing the bridges in place and
detouring traffic along surrounding roads during construction.
4

E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved in the project, the following evaluation must
be completed. If the project consists n of Type I improvements, the
following checklist does not need to be Completed.
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any - -
unique on any unique or important natural resource'? X
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur? X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than x
one-third (1/3) acre and have all practicable measures
wetland to avoid and minimize takings been evaluated'?
(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands? X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters X
(HQW)?
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties'? X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? X
5
14
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any N/A
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required? X
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway? X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? X
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business? X
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the x
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor'?
(18) Will the project involve any changes in access control'? X
(19) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/ or land
use of any adjacent property'? X
6
r
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? X
(21) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/ or Transportation Improvement Program (and is, X
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)? --
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? X
(23) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing -
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? X
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local
laws relating to the environmental aspects of the action? X
CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on properties eligible for
or listed on the National Register of Historic Places'? X
(27) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl X
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation
Act of 1966)?
(28) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for X
inclusion in the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers`?
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
Not Applicable
7
J
G. CE ApDCOVaI
TIP Project No. B-2130
State Project No. _ 8.12417.0.1
Federal-Aid Project No. _ BRSTP-111(2)
Project Description:
The purpose of this project is to replace Bridge No's. 14 and 31 on NC 111 over
Limestone Creek and Overflow in Duplin County. The new structure to replace
Bridge No. 14 will be a 3 @ 3.0 meter by 2.4 meter (10 foot by 8 foot) reinforced
concrete box culvert (RCBC). The new structure to replace Bridge No. 31 will be a
bridge approximately 37 meters (120 feet) in length and 9.1 meters (30 feet) in width.
Both replacements will be located at approximately the same location and roadway
elevations as the existing bridges. The travelway on the bridge will be two 3.7 meter
(12 foot) lanes with 1 meter (3 foot) shoulders. Approach work will consist of
resurfacing and widening the roadway to two 3.7 meter (12 foot) lanes with 2.4 meter
(8 foot) shoulders, including 0.6 meter (2 foot) paved shoulders on each side, and
installing guardrail where appropriate. This approach work will extend from
approximately 91 meters (300 feet) south of Bridge No. 14 to approximately 122
meters (400 feet) north of Bridge No. 31. The total project length will be
approximately 396 meters (1300 feet). Cars will be detoured along NC 241 and SR
1700 during construction. Due to weight restrictions on Bridge No. 155 on SR 1700,
truck traffic will be detoured along NC 241 and NC 11.
(See the attached location map.)
Catcuorical Exclusion Action Classification:
X TYPE II (A)
TYPE II (B)
Cam'
Date Assistant Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
Date Project Planning Unit Ilead
Date Proje P fining Et}ncer
8
.0100
Studied Detour Route
For Automobiles
9s 2.0 ? 09
v rv 1732 v ?1710
1.5 a I,??? N 35000'
1703 1733 17/1
o- .6 ? 1712
•
N 1734 ?? ??
1732 i 4 1 y'?
y 1710
h ? a Jodup .
0 4
1728
?qs 1 1732 1735 ? c?
\ I i.? ?( a 1711 ?P
1702 ? i??? \\ b
v ?O r i
Cabin i •.7 1' 36 Potters tl
1710 Hill°
Gum Yronch 1 717 I 1 716 1714
murch a o ry
zit , 0 ? •`' - ti
BRIDGE NO. 31 ?? 1700 ,C
9
1715
Cr 1700 . .
eek ?- `L 1718
I 1719
BRIDGE NO. 14 ? ?, ?P5 q \
?' 1719
1720 ` j
1727 S
1726 41 j
5 .S PAP f f^.,, rv \ 4- 17;
1739 .4 t•;
].p? 4 t•: .:.:?. _ BEULAVILLE 1715
nnc<tnne 12002 '6 POP. 1,060 1721
9 i o
L _ ,•::
0-
1962 2 1
19
b 1961 4`.y:;.•:•., .' F P 24 5 North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
1963 Planning & Environmental Branch
.9
DUPLIN COUNTY
9 1962 1724 0: '1802 1832 1801 REPLACE BRIDGE NO'S. 31 AND 14
1724 ,6 Q 6 ^ a ON NC 111 OVER LIMESTONE CREEK
i1 AND OVERFLOW
}1 1 1833 ; B-2130
4 1800 1 0 1801 0 kilometers 1.6 Idlometers 3.2
1964
Figure 1
0 miles 1 miles 2
Replacament of Bridge No.'s 31 and 14 on NC 111
Over Limestone Creek and Limestone Creek Overflow
Duplin County
TIP NO. B-2130
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.1241701
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. BRSTP-111(2)
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
B-2130
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
Matt K. Smit.?, Environmental Biologist
4 DECEMBER 1996
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................... 1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................... .............. 1
1.2 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................. .............. 2
1.3 TERMINOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS ...................................................... .............. 3
1.4 QUALIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR .................................. .............. 3
2.0 Physical Resources ....................................................................................... 3
2.1 REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS ......................................................... ............... 4
2.2 SOILS ........................................................................................... ............... 4
2.3 WATER RESOURCES ..................................................................... ............... 4
2.3.1 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters ................... ............... 4
2.3.2 Best Usage Classification ................................................ ............... 5

........................................
2.3.3 Water Quality ....... ............... 5
2.3.3.1 General Watershed Characteristics ........................ ............... 5
2.3.3.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network ........ ............... 6
2.3.3.3 Point Source Dischargers ........................................ ............... 6
2.3.4 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS ............................................ ............... 6
3.0 Biotic Resources ............................................................................ ............... 7
3.1 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES ........................................................... ............... 7
3.1.1 Disturbed Community ....................................................... ............... 8
3.1.2 Cypress-Gum Swamp .................................................... ... ...:'.....:.::.. 8
3.1.3 Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood forest ................... ............... 9
3.2 AQUATIC COMMUNITIES .................................................................. ............. 10
3.3 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS .............................................. .............. 10
3.3.1 Impacts to Terrestrial Communities ............................... .............. 10
3.3.2 Impacts to Aquatic Communities ................................... .............. 11
4.0 Jurisdictional Topics .................................................................... .............. 12
4.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES ................................................... .............. 13
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ......... .............. 13
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ................................... .............. 13
4.1.3 Permits .............................................................................. .............. 14
4.1.4 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation .............................. .............. 15
4.2 RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES ................................................... .............. 16
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species ........................................... .............. 16
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species .............. 18
5.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 19
1.0 Introduction
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in
the preparation of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the proposed project. The
purpose of this document is to inventory and describe the natural resources which
occur within the proposed right-of-way boundaries and which are likely to be
impacted by the proposed action. Assessments of the nature and severity of
probable impacts to these natural resources are provided, along with
recommendations for measures which will minimize resource impacts.
This report identifies areas of particular environmental concern which may
affect the selection of a preferred alignment or may necessitate changes in design
criteria. Such environmental concerns should be addressed during the preliminary
planning stages of the proposed project in order to maintain environmental quality
in the most efficient and effective manner. The analyses contained in this
document are relevant only in the context of the existing preliminary project
boundaries and design. If design parameters and criteria change, additional field
investigations may be necessary.
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project calls for the replacement of Bridge No.'s 14 and 31
on NC 111 over Limestone Creek and Limestone Creek overflow. The project lies
in Duplin County, 3.2 km (2 mi) north of Beulaville (Figure 1). The existing cross
section is 7.7 m (25.4 ft) and the proposed cross section is 12.2 m (40 ft), no
additional right-of-way will be required for the construction of the proposed
project. Two alternatives are being considered:
.Alternative 1 calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 14 with a 2.4 m (10 ft x 8
ft) reinforced concrete box culvert at the existing location and the replacement
of Bridge No. 31 with a bridge 37 m in length at the existing location. Traffic
will be rerouted onto secondary roads throughout project construction. Total
project length is 274 m 900 ft).
.Alternative 2 calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 14 with a 2.4 m (10 ft x 8
ft) reinforced concrete box culvert at the existing location and the replacement
of Bridge No. 31 with a bridge 37 m (120 ft) in length at the existing location.
The construction of an onsite detour located east of the existing roadway to
maintain traffic flow. The onsite detour involves the construction of one
temporary bridge and one temporary culvert. Total project length is 457 m
(1500 ft).
5
_t '? o•.dena K.
toy
f. ??w.nKt II ? I S.
V TTY ,Y, ] S' l ?? K,nana.a 1.
% ron
117 Nall
1 1„I,?u
D lP P L l' I I N °
I+,twli < 1
7{ II u In1 41' lnn,n
1 Am, Hilt \ '? 7 •,vin Call
S """'f ( 41
T„
N I T, r, a"t
_ v
X09 ?
r 2 v ?? I710
G.. C, N 1732 1.5 3.s'pp, 1
C.
1 1703
c 6 r? 1712
173A (' < =0 N Jocup
ZI(O
1726 /-?-,
SS 1732 _ 1735
?.) ?w 1711
N G
1-70-211?I? ,., /• •. b
CCDtn C1 _.5
• _ 170 ?c_ _ ?? 1 Hill e
Gum yrcnch 171.7 1716` \ 1711
: (-Burch 1ti
`l 1 700 17 c? ?`
BRIDGE NO. 31 ? 4P - _
9 _
1715
1718
f / / a
1 1
1719
c, q
BRIDGE NO. 14 1719 ?
S 171727 .5 9J` 41 `-b t
12 66 •? ?
-? n 17:
.S FAP r.- rr /?
S t ?';.•.. ,?' BEULAVILLE 1715 _
/ 6 ? 7 POP. 1,060 1721 a
?c?tone?J" - 2002 '••.'""??.,,c •e. a
c S 1 ;
r: 1.
1962 4 FAp 24 ~% North Carolina Department Of
1961 ?'• ":: ':• .•.. r
6 - <? Transportation
9 f & >. ??;, Planning & Environmental Branch
1963
DUPL.L`t CObN, -N
a , 1801 REPLACE BRIDGE NO'S. 31 AND 14
i 1962 172A ° 1802
-1
fl 6 t 3 _ a ON NC 111 OVER LMESTONE CREEK
172e .6 ?5 ^ AND OVrRFLOW
B-2130 1
r +r 0 kilomctcrs 1.6 ilomctcrs 3.2
1800 b 180. l } - if Figure I
tubs '
a c 1?1 _-- ..r...aeanvasnst? !S! 0 milts 1 miles 2
2
1.2 METHODOLOGY
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Published resource
information pertaining to the project area was gathered and reviewed. Resources
utilized in this preliminary investigation of the project area include:
• Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps (Beulaville)
• Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Maps
(Beulaville)
NCDOT aerial photographs of the project area (1:1200)
• Soil Conservation Service [now known as Natural Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS)] Soil Survey of Duplin County, North Carolina (1954).
NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis Environmental Sensitivity
Base Map of Duplin County (1995)
Water resource information was obtained from publications of the
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR, 1993).
Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected species in
the study area was obtained from the FWS list of protected and candidate species
(23 August 1996) and from the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database
of rare species and unique habitats. NCNHP files were reviewed for documented
sightings of state or federally listed species and locations of significant natural
areas.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by
NCDOT Environmental Biologists Matt Smith and Logan Williams on 4 Octobar
1996. Water resources were identified and their physical characteristics were
recorded. Plant communities and their associated wildlife were also identified and
described. Terrestrial community classifications generally follow Schafale and
Weakley (1990) where possible, and plant taxonomy follows Radford, et al.
(1968). Animal taxonomy follows Martof, et al. (1980), Menhenick (1991), Potter,
et al. (1980), and Webster, et al. (1985). Vegetative communities were mapped
utilizing aerial photography of the project site. Predictions regarding wildlife
community composition involved general qualitative habitat assessment based on
existing vegetative communities. Wildlife identification involved using a variety of
observation techniques: qualitative habitat assessment based on vegetative
communities, active searching, identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds,
scat, tracks and burrows). Cursory surveys of aquatic organisms were conducted
using a hand held dip net; tactile searches for benthic organisms were
administered as well. Organisms captured during these searches were identified
and then released.
Jurisdictional wetlands, if present, were identified and evaluated based on
criteria established in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual"
(Environment Laboratory, 1987) and "Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands
3
in North Carolina" (Division of Environmental Management, 1995). Wetlands were
classified based on the classification scheme of Cowardin, et al. (1979).
1.3 TERMINOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS
For the purposes of this document, the following terms are used
concerning the limits of natural resources investigations. "Project area" denotes
the area bounded by the proposed right-of-way limits along the full length of the
project alignment. "Project vicinity" is defined as an area extending 1.0 km (0.6
mi) on all sides of the project area, and "project region" denotes an area
equivalent in size to the area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map,
i.e. 163.3 sq km (61.8 sq mi).
1.4 QUALIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Investigator Matt K. Smith, Environmental Biologist
Education: BS Marine Biology, University of North Carolina at
Wilmington, 12/94.
Certification: N.C. Certified Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator.
Experience: Laboratory Technician, Takeda Chemical Products
Lepidoptera researcher, USFS
Expertise: Native Lepidoptera collection, field biological inventories,
water quality testing
2.0 Physical Resources
Soil and water resources which occur in the project area are discussed
below with respect to possible environmental concerns. Soil properties and site
topography significantly influence the potential for soil erosion and compaction,
along with other possible construction limitations or management concerns.
Water resources within the project area present important management limitations
due to the need to regulate water movement and the increased potential for water
quality degradation. Excessive soil disturbance resulting from construction
activities can potentially alter both the flow and quality of water resources, limiting
downstream uses. In addition, soil characteristics and the availability of water
directly influence the composition and distribution of flora and fauna in biotic
communities, thus affecting the characteristics of these resources.
4
2.1 REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
Duplin County lies in the Coastal Plain physiographic province of North
Carolina (Figure 2). The topography of Duplin County is characterized as
generally flat with moderate slopes sometimes associated with rivers and streams.
In the vicinity of the project area, topography is nearly level, with slopes of less
than 5 percent. Project elevations range from 5 m (16 ft) to 6 m (20 ft) above
mean sea level. Parent material for soils in Duplin County is interbedded and
unconsolidated sands, silts, and clays comprising marine sediments in the
uplands and materials washed from these formations, transported by water or
gravity, and laid down as alluvial deposits in the valleys.
A predominance of the land available in Duplin County is managed for
agriculture or forestry. Areas not in agriculture or forestry are generally too wet
for these uses.
2.2 SOILS
Soils located in the project area are classified as swamp (Sd). Swamp is a
miscellaneous soil type that consists of very poorly drained areas along most of
the larger streams and some smaller streams. The parent material for this soil
type is recent deposits of alluvium. Swamp occurs on 0-2% slopes, has a high
water table, is subject to frequent overflow, and is covered by water much of the
time. This soil type is not listed as a hydric soil, however, field surveys
determined that soils in the project area exhibit characteristics of hydric soil. The
predominant forest type associated with this soil type is cypress-gum swamp.
2.3 WATER RESOURCES
This section contains information concerning surface water resources likely
to be impacted by the proposed project. Water resource assessments include th.?
physical characteristics, best usage standards, and water quality aspects of the
water resources, along with their relationship to major regional drainage systems.
Probable impacts to surface water resources are also discussed, as are means to
minimize impacts.
2.3.1 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters
Water resources located within the study area are located in the Northeast
Cape Fear subbasin of the Cape Fear River Drainage Basin. Two surface water
resources will be impacted by the proposed project, Limestone Creek and
Limestone Creek overflow. Limestone Creek originates north of the project area
._ :'i? ?' III%/ 1'• ,(I ? sp°?°?
cem,
''•'•I. .?•. ? Ili /? I\• '-? •x•11
,• I j/ ?Cem ;I \ 3173
'`? '• • 111 •' {r, ( ? -- ,.,
cem
' r ' I ISOl1U
in • , I 1, CdNn Ch •' ?.' -
111 I• ,I • • ' , ?•'( \ ?? • ••1?.. I ' 3172
Ce ? I ? leaaa
ti,Gum Onneh Ch
57'30"
;s I)Still-? lilt
- - BRIDGE NO. 31
- P,
( uoc
Tr:rl.r???r:?.i,'C73cr`'?tls r f .-?- '?-• `'. _ .- - ? eo:
Park ,n \ BRIDGE NO. 1.3 ;Li'me Creek - _ _
• L- `? ::I:em Quarry •I. 1 -- ? ? _-1 /, .?// ? !M
Tho
H,eh Fh \ \
i ? - ?' % I•' ?.o i V NORTH CARCLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
?_ ',•_ -??/?? / Ig DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
• -1 - iL \? I , Stl
-•, %? r '' ? •' ?? ?? .n ' il,' I \`t?,.o??1?,'r;?'/ PLANNING d. ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
? / ' ? •'1 DUPLIN COUNTY
( _? / IT21 '' Cem y III ``''? to REPLACE BRIDGE NO'S. 14 & 31 ON NC 111
II + \
OVER LIMESTONE CREEK &OVERFLOW
.?? _ ? ' ?a,... •t: ? ^.?? 8-2130
r TrailcrlLy . _ I
® - f Park 'i
SCALE 1:24000 FIGURE Two
ZZ
6M ?.L.IThealer ; B
- W :7.7 • e ,f`'' Beul,,Iville u..
•11• 'I' t 71 1 • 1 ?f• _..i ~.?l' -ILA 1 I ? (8M 26.71 _ '!?
V II I :y•J' •,• •?• ??T•_.i?•,•'?. 'T'If n? .27
26 5
\ ICI - •,?^ \ I
AIll /J ICem' 11
„? Ch;i%1 ??_ __1.1•/V _ I I. OM 27.0 ???120
5
in Limestone Swamp and flows south to its confluence with the Northeast Cape
Fear river in Hallsville.
The two crossings are similar in physical characteristics, except that the
Limestone Creek crossing has a denser riparian canopy. In the project area
streams are approximately 9 m (30 ft) wide and 1-2 m (5-6 ft) deep, with steep
banks. This is a black water swamp system, with extremely low flow except during
flood events and substrates are classified as muck with alluvial sand in the outer
floodplain. The floodplain is seasonally to semi-permanently flooded. Aquatic
and streamside vegetation is evident in the disturbed areas adjacent to crossings,
vegetation may have been more common prior to the recent 100 year floods.
2.3.2 Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of
EnvironmeWai h1anagernent (DEr,,1) which reflects water quality conditions and
potential resource usage. Limestone Creek (DEM Index No. 18-74-23) and its
overflow are classified as "C Sw" (1 July 1973). Class C waters are defined as
suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation, and agriculture. Sw is a supplemental classification which indicates
swamp waters, or waters which have low velocity.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies
(WS-I or WS-II) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km
(1.0 mi) of project study area.
2.3.3 Water Quality
This section describes the water quality of the water resources within the
project area. Potential sediment loads and toxin cincentrations of these waters
from both point sources and nonpoint sources are evaluated. Water quality
assessments are made based on published resource information and existing
general watershed characteristics. These data provide insight into the value of
water resources within the project area to meet human needs and to provide
habitat for aquatic organisms.
2.3.3.1 General Watershed Characteristics
Nonpoint source runoff from agricultural areas is likely to be the primary
source of water quality degradation to the water resources located in the project
vicinity. Water quality throughout North Carolina is significantly influenced by
nutrient loading and sedimentation from agricultural runoff. To a lesser extent,
6
inputs of nonpoint source pollution from residences within the project area are
probably also significant.
2.3.3.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN), managed by
DEM, is part of an on-going ambient water quality monitoring program which
addresses long term trends in water quality. The program monitors ambient water
quality by sampling at fixed sites for selected benthic macroinvertebrate
organisms. Some macroinvertebrates are sensitive to subtle changes in water
quality; thus , the species richness and overall biomass of these organisms are
reflections of water quality. However, BMAN information for Limestone Creek is
currently unavailable.
2.3.3.3 Point Source Dischargers
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted
through the National Polljtant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program
administered by the DEM. All dischargers are required to register for a permit.
The DEM NPDES report lists no permitted dischargers into the streams
and water bodies within the project area.
2.3.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Aquatic communities are sensitive to any changes in the environment. Any
action which affects water quality can have an adverse affect on aquatic
organisms. Although these actions may be temporary during the construction
phase of the project, environmental impacts from these processes may be long
term or irreversible. Replacing an existing structure in the same location with a
road closure is almost always the preferred environmental approach. Bridge
replacement on a new location with a detour on existing location generally results
in more severe impacts, therefore, alternate 1 is the prefered alignment. Physical
impacts will be most severe at the point of bridge replacement.
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface water
resources:
Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or erosion.
Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation
and vegetation removal.
7
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to
surface and ground water flow from construction.
• Changes in water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
• Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction,
and toxic spills.
• Increased scouring of the existing channel due to increased water volumes
which will result from the concentration of stormwater runoff associated with
the curb and gutter roadway design.
Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from
construction equipment and other vehicles.
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and
groundwater drainage patterns.
In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project
area, NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters
should be enforced during the construction phase of the project
3.0 Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include terrestrial and aquatic communities. This section
describes the biotic communities encountered in the project area, as well as the
relationships between fauna and flora within these communities. The composition
and distribution of biotic communities throughout the project area are reflective of
topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land uses. Descriptions of*ihe
terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications.
These classifications follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible.
Representative animal species which are likely to occur in these habitats (based
on published range distributions) are also cited.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are
provided for each animal and plant species described. Subsequent references to
the same organism refer to the common name only. Fauna observed during the
site visit are denoted in the text with an asterisk (").
3.1 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
Three distinct terrestrial communities were identified within the project
area: Disturbed Community, Cypress-Gum Swamp, and Coastal Plain Bottomland
Hardwood Forest. Community boundaries are frequently ill-defined due to
disturbance; contiguous communities often merge without distinct boundaries
between them. Thus, some areas may contain characteristics of two
communities.
8
3.1.1 Disturbed Community
The disturbed community occurs on the roadside shoulders in the study
area. It is maintained in an early successional state through infrequent mowing
and herbicide application. The immediate shoulders are dominated by grasses
such as: foxtail grass (Alopecurus carolinianus), crabgrass (Digitaria spp.), and
bead-grass (Paspalum spp.). On the outer slopes of the shoulders this
community herbaceous plants become more common. Common species are
goldenrod (Solidago altissima and S. rugosa), dog fennel (Eupatorium sp.),
tickseed (Bidens sp.), dayflower (Commelina communis), sicklepod (Cassia
obtusifolia), skullcap (Scutellaria sp.), richardia (Richardia brasiliensis), knoiweed
(Polygonum persicaria) and wool grass (Scirpus cyperinus). Vines in this
community include morning glory (Ipomoea sp.), poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radican's), honey suckle (Lonicera japonica), and Virginia creeper (Partheocissus
quinquefolia).
This community provides foraging opportunities for permanent residents of
other communities in the project vicinity. Foraging opportunities exist for species
which feed on seeds, insects, and carrion. Larger predators which commonly
feed on small animals will also find foraging opportunities along roadside
shoulders. Large predators commonly found utilizing roadside habitats include.-
red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus)', turkey vulture (Cathartes aura)', and gray
fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus). Invertebrates commonly found utilizing roadside
habitats include: northern pearl crescent (Phycoides selenis), fiery skipper
(Hylephila phyleus)", and spring azure (Celastrina argiolus) butterflies, also
present are various grasshoppers, flys, moths, beetles, and bees. These species
form the prey base for such predators as, garden spider (Argiope aurantia)",
southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis), red bat (Lasiurus borealis),
eastern kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus), prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria citrea),
and Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousii).
Opportunities also exist for species which feed on seeds and grasses.
Common herbivores in this habitat include: eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus
floridanus), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), European starling (Sturnus
vulgais), and American robin (Turdus migratorius).
3.1.2 Cypress-Gum Swamp
The cypress-gum swamp community has experienced varying degrees of
disturbance from logging and recent storms. Portions of this community have
been clear-cut and up to 90 percent of the cypress has been logged out of the
rest. The canopy in this community is dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum),
9
sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), river birch (Betula nigra), laurel oak
(Quercus laurifolia), and bald cypress (Taxodium distichum). The understory is
composed of young seedlings of canopy species that have germinated in
openings and small trees such as horse sugar (Symplocus tinctoria), red bay
(Persea borbonia), sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), and green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica). Alligator-weed (Alternanthera philoxeroides) lizards tail (Saururus
cernuus), and knotweed can also be found along water courses.
Habitats found within this community support a highly diverse association
of fauna. Raptors such as red shouldered hawk and barred owl (Strix varia) roost
in the canopy and hunt in the adjacent disturbed community. Impoundments
along stream channels provide excellent breeding habitat for amphibians, such
as, squirrel treefrog (Hyla squirella)' and southern dusky salamander
(Desmognathus auri-culatus) which lay their eggs in the seasonally wet pools.
Moths such as imperial moth (Eacles imperialis) and underwings (Catocala spp.)
are aztive in flight on most warm nights. Larger vertebrates such as raccoon
(Procyon lotor)" and many of the species that forage in the disturbed community
seek shelter in this and other forested communities.,'
3.1.3 Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood forest
The bottomland hardwood forest in the project area occurs upslope of the
cypress-gum swamp and contains many of the same species. The canopy
includes: overcup oak (Q. lyrata), swamp white oak (Q. michauxii), red maple,
sweet gum, and loblolly pine (Pious taeda). This community has a dense'
understory and shrub layer, dominant species include: red bay, horse sugar, red
maple, wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), and iron wood (Carpinus caroliniana). Vines
such as poison ivy and greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia) are also found in the
understory. Groundcover consists aimost entirely of seedlings of canopy and
understory species.
The dense nature of this community provides excellent shelter and
additional foraging opportunities for species found in adjacent communities.
Habitat is also available for woodland species that prefer upland environments.
Red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus)" can be found on canopy trees
foraging for insects. Also, lepidoptera such as wood nymph (Cercyonis peoala)*
and pink-spotted hawk moth (Agrius cingulatus) feed in the understory of this
community. Many small vertebrates thrive in the dense vine layer and deep leaf
litter found on the forest floor. Species such as salamanders (Plethodon spp.),
southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), and various mice (Peromyscus spp.)
tunnel in the leaf litter to forage. White-tailed deer and gray fox are common
large vertebrates in these habitats.
10
3.2 AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
Community composition of the aquatic communities is reflective of the
physical characteristics of the water body and the condition of the water resource.
Terrestrial communities adjacent to water resources also greatly influence aquatic
community composition and structure.
Limestone Creek and its overflow are a coastal plain black water swamp.
This community is characterized by extremely low flow and low water clarity.
Aquatic habitats found within this community are the stream channels, semi-
permanent pools, and permanently inundated pools. An extensive riparian
canopy exists throughout this community, canopy composition is described in
section 3.1. Hydrophytic herbs can be found to a varying degree in pools and
open areas along the stream bank. Common species include: knotweed, alligator
weed, and wool grass. Fauna in this community generally utilize all habitats
during some part of the year. Species adapted to,periodic flooding events are
found in the highest numbers. Common piscine species include: redfin pickerel
(Esox amenicanus), bluespotted sunfish (Emneacanthus gloriosus)+, and longnose
gar (Lepisosteus osseus). Aquatic organisms commonly found in
semipermanently flooded bottomlands include; bowfin (Amia calva), eastern
mudminnow (Umbra pygmaea), eastern mosquito fish (Gambusia holbrooki), and
crayfish (Procambarus spp.). This community also supports nonpiscine species
such as snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina) and brown water snake (Nerodia
taxispiIota). Piscivorous birds such as belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alycon) perch
on low hanging branches in the riparian canopy and prey on small fish.
3.3 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS/
Construction of the proposed project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. Any construction related activities in or near these
resources have the potential to impact biological functions. This section
quantifies and qualifies potential impacts to the natural communities within the
project area in terms of the area impacted and the organisms affected.
Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here as well, along with
recommendations to minimize or eliminate impacts.
3.3.1 Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project construction due
to the clearing and paving of portions of the project area, and thus the loss of
community area. Table 1 summarizes potential losses to these communities,
11
resulting from project construction. Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities
reflect the relative abundance of each community present in the study area.
Estimated impacts are derived based on the project length for alternate one and
two of 274 m (900 ft) and 457 m (1500 ft), respectively, and the entire proposed
right-of-way width of 30 m (100 ft). However, project construction often does not
require the entire right-of-way; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably
less.
Table 1. Estimated area impacts to terrestrial communities.
71,
C:bmm n?ty `, < ,rV'"? elm acted A L-A h ac >
> h .\; .>\ t oyJ\>Aa i`\2'liGtiG.v. :,. ;'•: em4lwe.j >r••wk ?.`i
nv..t.r N.31: 4 .aV. wn .:.\ < ... ... .. ..
Disturbed Community 0.2 (0.6) 0.3 (0.7)
Cypress-Gum Swamp 0.5 (1.2)
Disturbed Cypress-Gum Swamp 0.1 (0.2) 0.3 (0.7)
Bottomland Hardwood 0.1 (0.3)
Total Impacts 0.3 (0.8) 1.2 (2.9)
Alternate 1 is the prefered alternative in order.to minimize impacts to
terrestrial communities. This alternative will not result in additional habitat
fragmentation or the loss of forested habitats.
The projected loss of habitat reuslting from project construction will have a
minimal impact on populations of naitve fauna and flora. Construction of the
prefered alignment (alternative 1) will primarily. impact the disturbed community,
which is already highly altered from its natural state. Plants and animals found in
this community are generally common throughout North Carolina and are'well
adapted to life in disturbed areas. Also, a similar roadside shoulder community
will be re-established after construction. Animals temporarily displaced by
construction activites should repopulate areas providing suitable habitat following
project completion. In order to minimize the temporary effects of project
construction, all cleared areas along the roadways should be revegetated soon
after completion to reduce the loss of wildlife foraging habitat.
Construction of an onsite detour (alternate 2) will result in increased
impacts to terrestrial communities. This alternate also impacts forested
communities in the project area. The loss of these communities will result in an
overall decrease in biological diversity. The disturbed communites that are likely
to be established after project completion will not provide suitable habitat for some
interior species
3.3.2 Impacts to Aquatic Communities
Alterations in the aquatic communities will result from the installation and/or
extension of bridges, box culverts and pipes. Impacts often associated with
12
in-stream construction include loss of natural stream substrates, increased
channelization of water flow, and scouring of stream channels. In-stream
construction alters the stream substrate available to aquatic organisms, resulting
in changes in aquatic community composition. In addition, water movement
through these structures becomes direct, thus increasing the flow velocity. As a
result, scouring zones may develop within the channel at culvert outflows.
Extreme care must be exercised during these activities to minimize sedimentation
and ensure that water flow will not become restricted or abrasive at either end of
the proposed culvert.
Decreases in dissolved oxygen and fluctuations in water temperatures
result from the removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material at
the construction site. The removal or burial of these plants lowers the dissolved
oxygen level of the stream, as well as limiting food and shelter resources for
aquatic organisms. The indirect loss of aquatic plants and animals will affect
terrestrial fauna which feed upon these resources. Sedimentation and erosion
also increase with the loss of streamside vegetation. Greater exposure to wind
and direct sunlight correlates into greater fluctuations in water temperatures.
It is anticipated that permanent and temporary impacts to aquatic
communities will occur from increased sedimentation, increased light penetration
and loss of habitat. Sedimentation covers benthic organisms, inhibiting their
ability to feed and obtain oxygen. Filter feeders may be covered by excessive
sedimentation, thus preventing their ability to feed. Increased sediment loads and
suspended particulates in the water column can lead to the smothering of fish
eggs, reduced depth of light penetration in the water column, reduction of.
dissolved oxygen and alterations in water temperature. Increased light
penetration from the removal of streamside vegetation may also increase water
temperatures.
In order to minimize impacts to'agautic communities in the project area it is
recommended that alternative 1 be selected.
4.0 Jurisdictional Topics
This section provides inventories and impact analyses pertinent to two
significant regulatory issues: Waters of the United States and rare and protected
species. These issues retain particular significance because of federal and state
mandates which regulate their protection. This section deals specifically with the
construction, impact analyses required to satisfy regulatory authority prior to
project
13
4.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of
the United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register
(CRF) Part 328.3. Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into
surface waters or wetlands falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Surface waters include all standing or flowing waters which have commercial or
recreational value to the public. Wetlands are identified based on the presence of
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and saturated or flooded conditions during all
or part of the growing season.
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology. Wetlands occur on both alternates for the
proposed project. Wetlands impacted by alternate t have been impacted by
corridor maintenance (mowing, herbicide application). Approximately fifty percent
of the wetlands that occur on alternate 2 exist in their natural state. Those
wetlands that are disturbed are either clear-cut or maintained. Wetland flora and
soils are comparable with a greater density of herbaceous plants occurring in
disturbed areas.
The wetland site is located on the east side of NC 111 from south of bridge
# 14 to north of bridge # 31 and adjacent to the two bridges on the west of NC
111. This wetland is located within the cypress-gum swamp community, soils are
loamy and exhibit low chroma values with common distinct mottles. Other wetland
characteristics include: oxidized rhizospheres, drainage patterns, watermarks on
vegetation, and inundation at 250 mm (10 in). This wetland serves an important
ecological function by filtering runoff from adjacent agricultural operations.
The N.C. DEM has instituted a numerical rating system from 0-100 to
gauge wetland quality. The fourth version of this rating system assesses
wetlands on the basis of water storage, pollutant removal, bank/shoreline
stabilization, and aquatic life value aspects of a wetland community. Other
wetland attributes considered are wildlife habitat and recreational, educational,
and economic value. The DEM rating for this wetland is 69.
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Highway construction impacts can severely affect the functions that
wetlands perform in an ecosystem. Wetlands influence regional water flow
regimes by intercepting and storing storm runoff which ultimately reduces the
14
danger of flooding in surrounding and downstream areas. Wetlands have been
documented to remove organic and inorganic nutrients and toxic materials from
water that flows across them. The presence of wetlands adjacent to roadways
can act as filters to runoff pollutants and toxins.
Approximate areas of jurisdictional wetlands in each alignment are
tabulated in Table 2.
Table 2: Anticipated impacts to wetlands.
Disturbed 0.1 (0.2) 0.3 (0.6)
Cypress-Gum Swamp 0.2 (0.5)
Disturbed Cypress-Gum Swamp 0.1(0.2) 0.2 (0.5)
Bottomland Hardwood 0.2 (0.5)
Total Impacts: 0.2 (0.4) 0.9 (2.1)
Note: Values cited are in hectares (acres).
Anticipated wetland impacts were determined using the entire ROW width
of 30 m (100 ft). Project construction generally does not require the entire
right-of-way width, therefore, actual wetland impacts may be considerably less.
These impact estimates include only wetland areas directly disturbed by
construction within the ROW, additional wetland areas might be indirectly affected
due to changes in water levels and siltation from construction activities.
The replacement of bridges at existing location with traffic detoured off site
(alternate 1) will result in the minimal amount of wetland impacts. Wetlands .
impacted by alternate 1 currently exist in a disturbed state. The construction of
the onsite detour (alternate 2) will impact a greater area of higher quality wetlands
than alternate 1. In order to minimize/avoid impacts to wetlands in the project
area alternate 1 is preferred.
4.1.3 Permits
impacts to jurisdictional surface waters and wetlands are anticipated from
the proposed project. As a result, construction activities will require permits and
certifications from various regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the water
quality of public water resources
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (23) is likely to be applicable for all
impacts to Waters of the United States resulting from the proposed project. This
permit authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or
financed in whole, or part, by another Federal agency or department where that
agency or department has determined the pursuant to the council on
15
environmental quality regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act:
(1) that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from
environmental documentation because it is included within a category of
actions which neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect
on the human environment, and;
(2) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the
agency' or department's application for the categorical exclusion and
concurs with that determination.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the
DEM prior to the issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any federally
permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to Waters of the
United States. Section 401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily
impacted for the duration of the construction or other, land manipulation. The
issuance of a 401 permit from the DEM is a prerequisite to issuance of a Section
404 permit.
4.1.4 Avoidance; Minimization, Mitigation
The COE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) a wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net'loss of
wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain
the chemical, biological and physical integrity of Waters of he United States,
specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ
to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts,
reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20).
Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization and compensatory
mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities
of averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the COE, in determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to
offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to the scope
and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing technology
and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps
to reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of
these steps will be required through project modifications and permit conditions.
16
Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project
through the reduction to median widths, ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road
shoulder widths.
Compensatory mitigation in not normally considered until anticipated
impacts to Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions
and values may not be achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and
practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts
which remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been
required. Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation and
enhancement of Water of the United States, specifically wetlands. Such actions
should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
Projects authorized under Nationwide permits usually do not require
compensatory mitigation according to the 1989 Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE.
However, final permit/mitigation decisions rest with the COE.
4.2 RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of
decline either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human
development. Federal law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a species
classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may receive additional protection
under separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are
protected under the provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of 23 August 1996, the FWS lists the
following federally-protected species for Duplin County (Table 3). A brief
description of the characteristics and habitat requirements of each along with a
conclusion regarding potential project impacts follows.
17
Table 3: Federally Protected Species for Duplin County.
Scisr?tif?G Name Common Name',
Alligator mississippiens American alligator T (S/A)
Picoides borealis red cockaded woodpecker E
Note: "E" denotes endangered, a species in danger of extinction throughout all or
a significant portion of its range.
"T (S/A)" denotes Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance, a species
that is threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species
and is listed for its protection.
Alligator mississippiens (American alligator) Threatened (S/A)
This listing is defined as a species which is threatened due to similarity of
appearance with other rare species and are listed to protect these species.
These species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject
to Section 7 consultation. Potential habitat for the American alligator does exist in
the project study area; however, no sightings of this animal occurred during field
investigations.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 13 October 1970
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) once occurred from New Jersey to
southern Florida and west to eastern Texas. It occurred inland in Kentucky,
Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri. The RCW is now found only in
coastal states of its historic range and inland in southeastern Oklahoma and
southern Arkansas. In North Carolina moderate populations occur in the sandhills
and southern coastal plain. The few populations found in the piedmont and
northern coastal plain are believed to be relics of former populations.
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is entirely
black and white except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male.
The back of the RCW is black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and
underside of this woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a
large white cheek patch surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly
longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand
must contain at least 50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with
other stands to be appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively
in trees that are >60 years old and are contiguous with pine stands at least 30
years of age. The foraging range of the RCW is up to 200 hectares (500 acres).
This acreage must be contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
18
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in
trees that are infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are
located in colonies from 3.6-30.3 m (12-100 ft) above the ground and average
9.1-15.7 m (30-50 ft) high. They can be identified by a large incrustation of
running sap that surrounds the tree. The large incrustation of sap is believed to
be used as a defense by the RCW against possible predators. A clan of
woodpeckers usually consists of one breeding pair and the offspring from
previous years. The RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June and hatch 38
days later. Clutch size ranges in number from 3-5 eggs. All members of the clan
share in raising the young. Red-cockaded woodpeckers feed mainly on insects
but may feed on seasonal wild fruits.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for the RCW does not occur in the project area. Forested
portions of the study area are bottomland harwood forest and cypress-gum
swamp. These communities are composed of significantly less than 50 % pine
and are not contiguous with pine stands that provide suitable foraging or nesting
habitat. A search of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats found
no occurrence of the RCW in the project vicinity. Therefore, no impacts to this
species will result from project construction.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are three federal species of concern (FSC) listed by the FWS for
Duplin County (Table 4). Federal species of concern are not afforded federal
protection under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its
provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as
Threatened or Endangered. However, the status of these species is subject to
change, and so should be included for consideration. Federal Species of
Concern (FSC) are defined as a species which is under consideration for listing
for which there is insufficient information to support listing. In addition, organisms
which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by
the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal
Species are afforded state protection under the NC State Endangered Species
Act and the NC Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 4 lists federal species of concern, the state status of these species (if
afforded state protection), and the potential for suitable habitat in the project area
for each species. This species list is provided for information purposes as the
protection status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
19
Table 4. Federal candidate and N.C. protected species for Duplin County.
;:Scisntiftc;.Narrte orrvi:Nacrit'; ;NC'Sttus; Na iEat
Procambarus plumimanus Croatan crayfish No
Dionaea muscipula venus flytrap C-SC No
Oxypolis ternata savanna cowbane No
NOTE: "" Species not afforded state protection but listed as Federal
Candidate.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor
were any of these species observed. A review of the NCNHP data base of rare
species and unique habitats revealed no records of North Carolina rare and/or
protected species in or near the project study area.
5.0 REFERENCES
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check-list of North American birds (6th
ed.). Lawrence, Kansas, Allen Press, Inc.
Amoroso, J.L. and A.S. Weakley. 1993. Natural Heritage Program list of the rare
plant species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation
manual. Technical report Y-87-1, U.S.-Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Lee, D.S., J.B. Funderburg, Jr. and M.K. Clark. 1982. A distributional survey of
North Carolina mammals. Raleigh, North Carolina Museum of Natural
History.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. and S.P. Hall. 1995.
animal species of North Carolina
Program.
Natural Heritage Program list of the rare
North Carolina Natural Heritage
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians
and reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of
North Carolina Press.
Menhenick, E.F. 1991. The freshwater fishes of North Carolina. North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1988. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN)
Water Quality Review 1983-1986.
20
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1991. Biological assessment of water quality in North Carolina
streams: benthic macro invertebrate data base and long term changes in
water quality, 1983-1990.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993. Classifications and water quality standards for North
Carolina river basins. Raleigh, Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources.
NCWRC. 1990. Endangered wildlife of North Carolina. Raleigh, North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission.
NRCS. 1976. Soil survey of Forsyth County, North Carolina. US Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Plant Conservation Program. 1991. List of North Carolina's endangered,
threatened and candidate plant species. Raleigh, North Carolina
Department of Agriculture.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas.
Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of
the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural
communities of North Carolina. Third Approximation. North Carolina ..
Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service. North
Carolina Agriculture Experiment Station.
U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. Classifications of wetlands and deepwater
habitats of the United States., U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington D.C.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia and Maryland. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.