20090676 Ver 1_Information Letter_20070822

Excerpts and Figures from the
Categorical Exclusion
Approved August 2001
Harnett-Sampson Counties
NC 55
Bridge Nos. 29 and 53 over Mingo Swamp
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-55(14)
State Project No. 8.1451501
T.I.P. No. B-3654
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
August 2001
Documentation Prepared By Ko & Associates, P.C.
L. J. rd, P.E.
Project Manager - Ko & Associates
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
PA
- -A?' Thomas R. Kendig, AICP
Consultant Engineering Unit Head
Yu
?i -
Robert Andrew Jo r, P. E.
Project Develop nt Engineer
4S6i
l
2
Harnett-Sampson Counties
NC 55
Bridge Nos. 29 and 53 over Mingo Swamp
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-55(14)
State Project No. 8.1451501
T.I.P. No. B-3654
Bridge No. 29 is located on NC 55 over Mingo Swamp approximately 0.3 mile west of
the Harnett-Sampson County Line. Bridge No. 53 is located on NC 55 over Mingo
Swamp on the Harnett-Sampson County Line. Bridge Nos. 29 and 53 are included in
the North Carolina Department of Transportation 2002-2008 Transportation
Improvement Program as B-3654. B-3654 is part of the Federal-Aid Bridge
Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial
environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal
"Categorical Exclusion".
1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 29 will be replaced at its existing location (Alternate 5A) with a new structure
approximately 120 feet (36.6 meters) long with a clear roadway width of 40 feet (12.2
meters). Bridge No. 53 will be replaced at its existing location (Alternate 5B) with a new
structure approximately 80 feet (24.4 meters) long with a clear roadway width of 40 feet
(12.2 meters). The immediate approaches will be 24 feet (7.2 meters) of pavement
with 8-foot (2.4-meter) shoulders including 4-foot (1.2-meter) paved and 4-foot (1.2-
meter) grassed. During the construction period, the existing bridges will be closed and
traffic will be routed along other existing roads. The current estimated cost of the
project, as shown in the NCDOT 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement Program, is
$690,000 including $90,000 for right-of-way and $600,000 for construction.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
NC 55 crosses over Mingo Swamp at the Harnett-Sampson County Line approximately
1.6 miles (2.6 kilometers) east of the junction of NC 55 and US 421. Development in
the immediate vicinity of Bridge Nos. 29 and 53 is sparse but residential development is
located along NC 55 east and west of the project area. None of this residential
development will be impacted by any of the alternatives studied. The maintenance
facility for C & D Farms is located between Bridge Nos. 29 and 53. This facility will not
be directly impacted by any of the studied alternatives, but travel service from the
maintenance facility to their farms will be hampered by the off-site detour alternatives.
NC 55 is classified as a Rural Major Collector in the Statewide Functional Classification
System.
4
NC 55 has a current pavement width of 20 feet (6.0 meters) with 8-foot (2.4-meter)
shoulders including 2 feet (0.6 meters) paved in the area of the bridges. The existing
bridges are in a roadway tangent section. The west approach to Bridge No. 29 is on a
curve from the north that becomes tangent approximately 175 feet (53.4 meters) from
the beginning of the bridge. The east approach to Bridge No. 53 is on a curve to the
south beginning approximately 175 feet (53.4 meters) from the end of the bridge. The
vertical grade on the west approach is falling towards a sag approximately 310 feet
(94.5 meters) from Bridge No. 29. The bridge is flat and the roadway across the
floodplain is almost flat with a slight rise to Bridge No. 53 on its west approach. Across
Bridge No. 53, the vertical grade is flat and begins rising on the east approach.
The traffic volumes on NC 55 at Mingo Swamp were 5,100 vehicles per day (vpd) in
1999 and are projected to be 10,700 vpd for the design year 2025. The volumes
include an estimated 4 % truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 4 % dual-tired (DT)
vehicles. The posted speed limit is 55 mph (88 kmph) in the vicinity of the bridge.
Bridge Nos. 29 and 53, as shown in Figure 2, each have an overall length of 61 feet
(18.6 meters) and a clear roadway width of 22 feet (6.6 meters). The existing two-lane
bridges have a reinforced concrete deck on steel girders supported by timber caps on
timber piles at various centers. The structures were constructed in 1936. There is no
posted restriction on weight limit for Bridge Nos. 29 and 53.
Bridge No. 29 has a sufficiency rating of 28.8 and Bridge No. 53 has a sufficiency rating
of 6.0 compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure and approaches.
No accidents were reported in the vicinity of Bridge Nos. 29 and 53 from January 1,
1998, to December 31, 2000.
There are no utilities attached to Bridge Nos. 29 and 53. An overhead power line
parallels the bridges and roadway on the north side and an underground telephone line
parallels the bridges and roadway on the south side. Utility conflicts should be
considered as light.
No public school bus crosses Bridge Nos. 29 and 53
III. ALTERNATIVES
The studied alternates were (1) to replace the structures at their existing location with a
temporary detour on the north or south side (Alternates 1-4), (2) to replace the
structures at their existing location closing NC 55 and utilizing an off-site detour
(Alternates 5A & 5B), and (3) to replace the structures at their existing location using
stage construction techniques that utilize the existing bridges as a temporary detour
(Alternates 6A & 6B). These alternatives are shown in Figures 3-10. The stage
5
construction alternates will cut approximately 5 feet (1.5 meters) off the side of Bridge
Nos. 29 and 53, reducing them to one-lane bridges. Traffic signals will be placed at
opposite ends of the bridges. Traffic will be stopped in one direction while the traffic in
the opposite direction crosses the bridges. Half of each new bridge will be constructed
while the traffic is handled on the existing one-lane bridge sections. Traffic will be
shifted to the new sections, the remainder of the existing bridges removed, and the
second half of the new bridges constructed. See Figure 11 for details of the
construction stages.
Given the wide, flat, black-water swamp characteristics of Mingo Swamp and the
existing tangent roadway section across the bridges with curves located approximately
175 feet (53.4 meters) east and west of the bridges, new location alternates are not
considered feasible or prudent. Based on preliminary hydrographic studies, the most
feasible option is to replace the existing bridge structures with new structures at their
existing alignment. Therefore, new location alternatives were removed from further
study.
The posted speed limit for the on-site detour on either side of the bridges is 40 mph (65
kmph) and the corresponding design speed for the on-site detours is 45 mph (70 kmph).
The posted speed limit for the new structures is 55 mph (88 kmph) and the
corresponding design speed is 60 mph (100 kmph). The grade of the new structures
will be approximately the same elevation of the existing structures.
The recommended replacement structure for Bridge No. 29 is a new bridge structure at
the existing location, approximately 120 feet (36.6 meters) long with a 40-foot (12.2-
meter) clear roadway width, two 12-foot (3.6-meter) lanes with 8-foot (2.4-meter)
shoulders. The recommended replacement structure for Bridge No. 53 is a new bridge
structure at the existing location, approximately 80 feet (24.4 meters) long with a 40-foot
(12.2-meter) clear roadway width, two 12-foot (3.6-meter) lanes with 8-foot (2.4-meter)
shoulders. The grade of the roadway over the new structures will be approximately the
same elevation as the existing bridges. The approaches to the bridges will have a
pavement width of 24 feet (7.2 meters) with 8-foot (2.4-meter) shoulders including 4-foot
(1.2-meter) paved. The design speed will be 60 mph (100 kmph). The alternates are
shown in Figures 3 through 10. [Each bridge replacement proposal was treated as a
separate alternative to allow flexibility in implementing the proposal for each bridge
individually or simultaneously.]
The No-Build or "do-nothing" alternate was also considered but this choice would
eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not a desirable alternative due to
the traffic service provided by NC 55.
Investigation of the existing structures by the NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit
indicates that rehabilitation of the old bridges is not feasible due to their age and
deteriorated condition. The existing bridges are classified as structurally deficient.
6
V. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
The recommended improvements are Alternates 5A and 5B (see Figures 7 & 8). Bridge
No. 29 will be replaced at its existing location (Alternate 5A) with a new structure
approximately 120 feet (36.6 meters) long with a clear roadway width of 40 feet (12.2
meters). Bridge No. 53 will be replaced at its existing location (Alternate 5B) with a new
structure approximately 80 feet (24.4 meters) long with a clear roadway width of 40 feet
(12.2 meters). The immediate approaches will be 24 feet (7.2 meters) of pavement with
8-foot (2.4-meter) shoulders including 4-foot (1.2-meter) paved and 4-foot (1.2-meter)
grassed. The design speed will be 60 mph (100 kmph). NC 55 at Bridge Nos. 29 and
53 will be closed to traffic during the construction period. Because the maintenance
facility for C & D Farms is located between Bridge Nos. 29 and 53, the bridges can not
be constructed simultaneously; consequently, the construction period could last up to 24
months. During the construction period, traffic will be routed along other existing roads.
The detour alternates are shown in Figure 12. Truck and regional traffic on NC 55 will
be detoured around Bridge Nos. 29 and 53 via US 421 and NC 242.
Strong consideration was given to Alternates 6A and 6B which used stage construction
techniques and the existing bridges to handle traffic during the construction period (see
page 6 for complete description of 6A & 6B & Figure 11 for stage construction details).
Alternatives 6A and 6B were not selected because of construction difficulty created by
stage constructing a cored slab bridge. Alternates 1-4 (on-site detours) were not
selected because of the impacts to the natural environment by constructing the on-site
detours .
The Division Three and Division Six Offices concur with the recommended
improvements.
VI. TRAFFIC DETOUR
The feasibility of road closure with an off-site detour was investigated. The traffic
volume on NC 55 east of the project area near its intersection with NC 242 drops to
2700 vpd. This implies that less than half of the 5,100 vpd currently using Bridge Nos.
29 and 53 is regional in nature. A study of the traffic volume inventory in the project
study area was used to estimate that most of the 5,100 vpd would experience an
average increase in trip length of approximately 2.5 miles if NC 55 was closed to traffic
during the construction period. Because the farm maintenance facility is located
between the two bridges, it will not be practical to close both bridges at the same time.
Therefore, the off-site detour will be in effect for approximately two years (one year to
construct each bridge). For the two-year construction period, the off-site detour is
estimated to have a road user cost of $3,000,000 (at 32 cents per vehicle-mile).
Nineteen residents attended the public involvement workshop held for the project on
8
April 5, 2001. The consensus of the residents supported the maintenance of traffic
during construction without an off-site detour. Four of the five residents that provided
written comments concerning the bridge replacement project were in opposition to
closing NC 55 and using an off-site detour.;
The Division Six Office indicated that NC 55 is used frequently by emergency vehicles
and is also a hurricane evacuation route that is used as an exit for the one-way traffic
flow scenario for evacuating 1-40 traffic from the coastal areas.
9
N
d
R
U
N
L_
N
d
U
R
v
c
a?
N
d
Q.
m
co
00
N
N
cu
R
a
_C
L
3
N
(D
C
J
E
C
O
U
w
cu
Q
R
n?.
'O
.j
C
O
R
a
r
d
cu
cu
l9
o O O (n (°

M O N_
F
- TO O° N`-
rn
N
o

O
M N
0
Y
NQ? N ?m ?c+Ni r?
a) ca E Oo °o ?o
a? 0 O N
¢Q o a
0

0 0o v
T v
o_
E v
0 o
0 0 ?v
0
a?
0 N
N
O `-O V
`-O
a M
W
of
3
y
Q a °
' m
Q
LU ?Q
O OO
V ?m
N ?m
0
F. ` N m E T O 0 0 O
0 O d
a =_
o
co
w O
u>

0 gym .° ?m
E 00 0o
0
0
F

o m ` v o
N.-
M

? o m c
IOQ? c0 Om ?N ?(O
E a) m E oo °0 T-0
o a
a ? s LL
00
Z
t0
O N u N N
d
H
N
C O 0
E LL
J

0
)O n o
Dm
F
U o
C o
° 3 ~
C Q
0L
n) ?
?
N
CL
0 lpN N O O
0 00 0 0 00
J

Q1 o m
C
a)
ON NO ?M
m Q (D E ° o ° o O o

Y 'N o
` N
d
om
Q
O ?
m
0
d 0
E
m
I-
M N V
o
°
F ° O ° O O

Q
W

of
a J C
N
Q m 0?
Q [ 6 ? M M r ? V
W t p
a) E O O O O O
F C (U
a N?
CL

O
U) T
w
o O
E
a?
F
m? O N O r
0
°
F- N O O O N
rn
c
0 o c
M o r?
fO D
C N M E ?o °o To
L y
d ? o
a
C
Q J

O `

O O ? 9

O
E

?
C5 6
°

o

o
0
F
'E N

E
0 Q
E mLL J
E
E N

°
U O
°
0 Q N F

O
o
3 F
c m °
FL = D
I I
0 O
C
N
N N
7 ?
U
N N
N fUE
N E
o ?
-o E
C U
o ?
o Q.
? o
N L
N ~
C ?
O d
U L
? Q
N R
C N
O .O
N
O
? U
R
? R
L ?
+? C
U
N
O C
? O
-O U
Ul N
c N
O T
D]
C ?
O U
N C
U
O
?a
C C
Q U N
N N
o o
Z OU E

N
N
d
R
C
L
d
R
d
N
O
a
O
Q.
.O
N
U
R
Q
m
C
Y
O
2
N
R
d
R
R
c
O
Y
U
N
O N
R
L
R r
a "
C d
R
t N
a L
3 m
O
L R
R Y
E (D
E
Ua
w
N C
O N
cu Q
H Q
(6 ?
p N
V i j
~

rn
N
_
O N N
d ?'O
O N ?N
c" NN
C
m E r OO
v
` `

.. m
o _
a
Q C L
o
0
Z
Z
l9
O
N N

n
E p

Nr V

r J
H
CC

6
p N
r
r
r

LL u?
? #
C
O N
o? a>
F- A ??
` N
E N N
r C7 ?
° o
? c ? m
y r
o
-

? a

Q C L d
Z
2
H O o
O
E2
n ??
N CM
E I ? ° O
H
pN O>?
N ?O ?O p ?
H

c+>
N
? # C
r ow

O O-o
A O' c
m
SON
N
M
p

cam E

` O

w o m
a
Q C L
r
O
z°

O
`p N
Ncp V
ON
d r ° p
E
F-
J L
w p

Q ~ H ?
z?a
`

Z o
t Q
Ow -
a a
0
p N M
F ??; oo
m J
N O D c
N
d 0#
mm c0 N?
'? M ?
? E ? °a

ao°

R
N
'
E ?
N
I-

N V
O N
M
? u7 it1 O O
Q 3 C
d ? #
0 N 117 [O
"' M
m
m E ? °o
c d ?
m
QO

m
p
d
? N
N ?
E
N
V
p N
V
N
6
F

m
N
7 # C
d
O N N
N 09

` N ?+N
co
`" ??
c gym E rte °o
„w o p_
Q C L
O

m
`p
Np
N

E
F
J C m
Q O
H Q U
Z Q a
o m
m
E- Z L Q
a0

00
N ED
m
C
C-) 3
N N
? U
C
E
a ?
O ?
? C
N N
a n
to O
C
O p
U r,
C
O (D
C C)
N ?
3 ?
C ?
O O)
U
L
W
N a
C R
O N
U
?a
R O
m
.LJ m
3 c
? U
7 C
O
N C
a O
O U
m' N
U 0)
C R
O (n
T
CO 9
co a
a
c
R Q)
Q U
N ?
O U
fE a
C C
Q U Q)
b O
O N ?
O CO E
Z U E
O
N

y
CONCURRENCE MEETING
INFORMATION PACKET
FOR YOUR. REVIEW
PRIOR TO MEETING ON

PROJECT ENGINEER
Jennifer Fuller
B-3654
Please bring this packet
to the meeting.

DENR - WAf ER QUA""
WETLANDS AND STDRMWATER BRANCH
AGENDA
Eastern Concurrence Meeting
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Board Room, Transportation Building
Raleigh, North Carolina
10:30 AM to 12:00 Noon, Jennifer Fuller, Project Planning Engineer, PDEA Branch
TIP No. B-3654, Bridges 29 and 53 on NC 55 over the Mingo Swamp
Harnett and Sampson Counties, Division & 3 .
Team Members
Richard Spencer, USACE, Div. 6
Jennifer Fuller, PDEA
Jake Riggsbee, FHWA, Div. 6
Chris Militscher, EPA
Gary Jordan, FWS
• Rob Ridings, DWQ, Div. 6
Sarah McBride, SHPO
Joel Strickland, Mid-Carolina RPO (non-signatory)
NCDOT Technical Support Staff and Other Agency Staff:
Jennifer Frye, USACE, Div. 3
Ron Lucas, FHWA, Div. 3
David Wainwright, DWQ, Div 3
Allen Pope, Division 3
Terry Gibson, Division 6
Tracey Pittman, Division 6 .
Tony Houser, Roadway Design
Charles Hunt, Structures
Andrew Nottingham, Hydraulics
Don Idol, Bridge Maintenance
Chris Underwood, NEU
Derrick Weaver, PDEA
Eric Midkiff, PDEA
Consultants:
Mark Reep, Ko and Associates
Clay Oliver, Ko and Associates
* The purpose of the meeting is to reach concurrence on CP 2A and CP 4A.
B-3654, Bridge Nos. 53 and 29, NC 55 over Mingo Swamp
Harnett / Sampson County
Project Summary
The Categorical Exclusion (CE) for this project was approved in August 2001 and recommended
replacing the bridges in the existing location while maintaining traffic with an off-site detour -
Alternatives 5A and 5B. Based on opposition from local emergency services personnel, road
closure is no longer feasible. An addendum to the CE is being prepared to address the
recommendation change.
Project Background
Bridge No. 29 is located on NC 55 over Mingo Swamp approximately 0.3 mile west of the
Harnett-Sampson County Line. Bridge No. 53 is located on NC 55 over Mingo Swamp on the
Harnett-Sampson County Line. Bridge Nos. 29 and 53 are included in the North Carolina
Department of Transportation 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement Program as B-3654.
B-3654 is part of the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure
1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The following alternatives were
considered in the CE approved in August 2001 (see the accompanying figures):
• Alternative 1 - replaces Bridge No. 53 in its existing location using a temporary on-site
detour located north of the existing bridge.
• Alternative 2 - replaces Bridge No. 53 in its existing location using a temporary on-site
detour located south of the existing bridge.
• Alternative 3 - replaces Bridge No. 29 in its existing location using a temporary on-site
detour located north of the existing bridge.
• Alternative 4 - replaces Bridge No. 29 in its existing location using a temporary on-site
detour located south of the existing bridge.
• Alternative 5A (recommended) - replaces Bridge No. 29 in its existing location using an
off-site detour.
• Alternative 5B (recommended) - replaces Bridge No. 53 in its existing location using an
off-site detour.
• Alternative 6A - replaces Bridge No. 29 using phased construction.
• Alternative 6B - replaces Bridge No. 53 using phased construction.
In response to opposition by the local emergency service personnel, Alternatives 7A and 7B were
developed. These alternatives are similar to Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 above, but the
temporary detour alignments for 7A and 7B are located closer to existing alignments. By doing
so, it is possible to tie the alignments for the temporary detours back into the existing NC 55
closer to the respective bridge reducing the overall footprint of the project; therefore, decreasing
the environmental impacts associated with Alternatives I and 3. Alternatives 7A and 7B are
described below (see the accompanying figures).
• Alternative 7A - replaces Bridge No. 53 in its existing location with a proposed two lane
bridge using a temporary on-site detour located north of the existing bridge. The temporary
detour alignment is located closer to the existing bridge to minimize impacts to the
environment.
• Alternative 7B - replaces Bridge No. 29 in its existing location with a proposed two lane
bridge using a temporary on-site detour located north of the existing bridge. The temporary
detour alignment is located closer to the existing bridge to minimize impacts to the
environment.
B-3654 Project Summary 07.23.07 Page I of 3
Table 1 - Hvdraulic Table
' a a
w tln? ? - s1 " a ` Alternative 7A !
w u ? s

"e No.<53 ..
Brd ' T"1 Alternative°7B'...?°5 ?
i :1

? .',=_'Brrd `e'No r29t :t
Type oPo osed
Structure Bridge Bridge
-
Length of Proposed Structure 80' 120'
Width of Proposed Structure 39' 32'
Net Cost of Proposed Structure TBD TBD
Stream Classification C sw C sw
Stream Name Mingo Swamp Mingo Swamp
Wetland Rating / Type 89 / Swamp Forest 89 / Swamp Forest
Impacts to Wetlands
(Temporary / Permanent) 0.28 acres / 0.34 acres 0.36 acres / 0.47 acres
Impacts to Streams 150' 120'
Intermittent or Perennial Perennial Perennial
Existing Channel Dimensions 15'W x 2.5'D (max.) 15'W x 2.5'D (max.)
-
Type of Existing Structure Reinforced concrete deck on I-
beams with timber cap and
pile substructure Reinforced concrete deck on I-
beams with timber cap and
pile substructure
Size of Existing Structure Length = 61'; Width = 25.2' Length = 61'; Width = 25.3'
Zone 1 Riparian Buffer Impacts N/A N/A
Zone 2 Riparian Buffer Impacts N/A N/A
B-3654 Project Summary 07.23.07 Page 2 of 3
Preliminarv Alternatives Table
truer x t `s. a ` ' ` r
A i `tt ,t_ n sy r_x a fx s
Brig e?No 53 . Alternattve:7B i 'f
? Briil e?No29ar.zc
Project Length 922' 944'
Interchanges N/A N/A
Railroad Crossings N/A N/A
Schools 0 0
Recreational Areas and Parks 0 0
Churches 0 0
Cemeteries 0 0
Major Utility Crossings 0 0
Historic Properties 0 0
Archaeological Sites 0 0
Federal Listed Species Present
Within Corridor No No
State Listed Species Present
Within Corridor No No
100 Year Floodplain and
Floodway Crossings 1 1
Forest Impacts TBD TBD
Prime Farmlands 0 0
Potential Residential Relocations 0 0
Potential Business Relocations 0 0
Hazardous Materials Sites 0 0
Delineated Wetland Impacts 0.28 acres Temp. /
0.34 acres Perm. 0.36 acres Temp. /
0.47 acres Perm.
Delineated Stream Impacts 150 ft. 120 ft.
CAMA Areas of Environmental
Concern N/A N/A
Riparian Buffer Impacts for
Zone 1 and Zone 2 N/A N/A
Water Supply Watersheds No No
Wildlife Refuges and Gamelands No No
On-site Restoration Potential No No
Impacted Noise Receptors N/A N/A
Section 4(f) Impacts 0 0
Federal Lands No No
Low Income Population Impacts 0 0
Minority Population Impacts 0 0
Significant Natural Heritage
Program Areas TBD TBD
Right of Way Cost Estimate TBD TBD
Construction Cost Estimate TBD TBD
Existing and Proposed Greenway
Crossings 0 0
B-3654 Project Summary 07.23.07 Page 3 of 3

Subject: B-3654 and B-3693 Memo to rile
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 09:35:29 -0500
From: Drew Joyner <[e-mail]>
Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation
To: Richard Spencer <[e-mail]>,
Beth Barnes <[e-mail]>, Jake Riggsbee <[e-mail]>,
Derrick Weaver <[e-mail]. nc.us>, Roy Shelton <[e-mail]>
CC: Jack Ward <[e-mail]>
SUBJECT:
Replacement of Bridge Nos. 29 and 53 on NC 55 over Mingo Swamp in
Harnett and Sampson Counties, TIP Project B-3654
Replacement of Bridge Nos. 211 over Raft Swamp, 207 over Holly
Swamp, and 210 over Saddle Tree Swamp on SR 1527 in Robeson
County, TIP Project B-3693
Attendees:
Richard Spencer - USACE
Beth Barnes - DWQ
Drew Joyner - NCDOT
Derrick Weaver - NCDOT
Roy Shelton - NCDOT
A meeting was held on January 15, 2004, to evaluate whether or
not the subject projects need to go through the Section 404/NEPA
Merger Process. -
B-3654:
The Categorical Exclusion for B-3654 was completed on August 30,
2001. The recommended improvement was to replace the two bridges
in place and reroute traffic on an off-site detour. There has
been some opposition to the recommendation. NCDOT is now
reinvestigating alternatives. The two bridges are in close
proximity and are surrounded by high quality wetlands. After a
brief discussion of the potetial project impacts, the group
decided not take the project through the Merger process.
However, it was recojnmended that a Concurrence Point 2/2A/3
meeting be scheduled (perhaps a field meeting?) once full project
impacts are developed to discuss the alternatives, bridging, and
LEDPA with the Merger Team.
B-3693:
An agency field meeting took place on August 13, 2002, where the
Merger Team met and decided not to take the project through the
Merger process. However, it was recommended that a Concurrence
Point 2/2A/3 meeting be scheduled once full project impacts are
developed to discuss the alternatives, bridging, and LEDPA with
the Merger Team.. NCDOT is still trying to work through some
issues with the alternatives. A Merger Team meeting will be
scheduled once those issues have been resolved.
Drew Joyner, P. E.
Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Phone: [phone] ext. 269
Fax: [phone]
I of 1 1/20/2004 8:59 AM

B-3693, Robeson County / ,J_ 3Gsy ?ye??.:? (70 I Bo4?M 7 ?,
OctoberOctobcr 2? CC ? J
Bridge Nos. 207, 210, and 211 on SR 1527 over Raft Swamp
Robeson County, TIP No. B-3693
Project Information
05(
Description
This project replaces Bridge Nos. 207, 210 and 211 on SR 1527 (Pine Log Road) between NC 72
and NC 211 in Robeson County. SR 1527 has a poor horizontal alignment with a posted speed
limit of 55 mph. However, the design speed is limited to a minimum of 35 mph in curves. This
route is a rural minor collector that acts as a local detour to 1-95 traffic and is the closest route to
I-95.
Current traffic volumes are estimated to be 9,250 vehicles per day (vpd) and are projected to
reach 16,200 vpd in the year 2027. The roadway is expected to operate at LOS E (capacity) in
the year 2027.
In 2002, B-3693 ranked 83`d in a listing of the top 100 potentially hazardous bridge locations in
the North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program (NCDOT 2002). A guardrail was
installed to help reduce the occurrences of accidents. In the past five years, a total of 80 accidents
have occurred along Pine Log Road (SR 1527). Overall, the accident rate dropped below the
statewide average rate. Of the approximately 80 accidents, 30 occurred within the B-3693 project
area. Of the 30 accidents within the project area, 15 (50 percent) involved vehicles running off
the road or colliding with other vehicles. Those vehicles that ran off the road, struck the ditch,
guardrail, trees, or bridge rail. One resulted in a fatality.
Existing Conditions
Existin Roadway
Roadway Shoulders Posted 2005/2027 Percent
Width Seed Traffic Trucks
SR 1527 20' 9' grassed 55 mph 9,250 vpd/ 2% DT
15,700 v pd
2%TTST
Existing Bridges
Bridge Feature Sufficiency Dimensions Year Bridge Type Posted Weight
No. Crossed Rating L x W) Built Limits
207 U.T. to Raft 16.8 53' x 28' 1977 Timber substructure 18 tons (SU)
Swam concrete deck 25 tons TTST
210 Overflow for 27.2 36' x 24' 1955 Timber substructure 17 tons (SU)
Raft Swam concrete deck 24 tons TTST
211 Raft Swamp 9.8 155' x 24' 1955 Timber substructure 10 tons (SU)
concrete deck 17 tons TTST
i I PAO A?,fl r
2
L?%(? ?/? iE//f euf-
B-3693, Robeson County ,
October 25, 2007 - '

Alternatives
This project replaces Bridge Nos. 207, 210 and 211 on SR 1527 (Pine Log Road) between NC 72
and NC 211 in Robeson County. SR 1527 has a poor horizontal alignment with a posted speed
limit of 55 mph. However, the design speed is limited to a minimum of 35 mph in curves. This
route is a rural minor collector that acts as a local detour to 1-95 traffic and is the closest route to
1-95.
Alternate! replaces Bridge Nos. 207, 210, and 211 at their existing locations, for a length of 0.5 % mile. The design speed is targeted at 60 mph, but limited to 40 mph to two curves. Traffic will
be maintained on-site with temporary detours on the north/ west sides. Improvements are as
follows:
• Bridge No. 207 - Replaced by 80' x 35' Bridge
• Bridge No. 210 - Replaced by 50' x 35' Bridge
• Bridge No. 211 - Replaced by 190' x 35' Bridge
• Includes temporary work bridge @ 190' x 30'
Temporary Detour Bridges Considered:
• @ Bridge No. 207 - 55' x 30' Bridge
• @ Bridge No. 210 - 175' x 30' Bridge
• @ Bridge No. 211 - 465' x 30' Bridge
Hydraulic Minimum Detour Structures Considered:
• @ Bridge No. 207 - 53' x 30' Bridge
• @ Bridge No. 210 - 36' x30' Bridge
• @ Bridge No. 211 - 155' x 30' Bridge
Alternate 3 replaces the three bridges with a single bridge spanning high quality wetlands on the
south/ east side for a length of 0.5 mile. This alternative will provide a 60-mph design speed.
Traffic will be maintained on the existing structures until the replacement structure is completed.
This requires controlled access to eliminate the driveway access for a property on the north side
of SR 1527 between Bridge Nos. 210 and 211. Improvements are as follows:
• Bridge No. 207, 210, 211 - Replaced by 1,150' x 35' Bridge
• Includes bridge drainage system and temporary work bridge @ 1150' x 30'
Alternate 4 replaces Bridge Nos. 207, 210, and 211 at their existing locations, for a length of 0.5
mile. The design speed is targeted at 60 mph, but limited to 5 mpin two curves. Traffic will
be maintained on-site with temporary detours on the north/ west sides. Improvements are as
tt y
follows:
• Bridge No. 207 - Replaced by 80' x 35' Bridge
• Bridge No. 210 - Replaced by 50' x 35' Bridge
• Bridge No. 211 - Replaced by 190' x 35' Bridge
• Includes temporary work bridge @ 190' x 30'
e f .10 • IFS.
r" Temporary Detour Bridges Considered:
• @ Bridge No. 207 - 55' x 30' Bridge
• @ Bridge No. 210 - 175' x 30' Bridge
• @ Bridge No. 211 - 465' x 30' Bridge
Hydraulic Minimum Detour Structures Considered:.
• @ Bridge No. 207 - 53' x 30' Bridge
• @ Bridge No. 210 - 36' x 30' Bridge
• @ Bridge No. 211 - 155' x 30' Bridge
I 014
tB^
?` o fin f; ?Q'
N w?J
J
w
N_
w
C 0-
0
N ?
w O
a.
K
w
N
? w
a ?D
? N
O 0.
^ o
VI '.7
0
w 7
N w
? 0.
n ?
C ?
w
a N.
0.
oa
?o
7 O
00 O
w ?
n.
0.
? N.
? n
7 ?.
00 y
O O
N N
. w
n
O
0
?n
A
W
0
O
't
O
w
a
F
w
`G
w
7
0.
W
0
O
^

-- x cn '-1 m K x cn 14
s as ° 2 2

1 a
a
n
a b -? o ? N F ? C

w r C7 a 'fl
o
C? _ °' p, w
w

N N
n
N
? A (p
\ O
N O
?

N 0 A A w - l7 3
N IJ O O O .--• O A q O
w
O N O
p
C O
O O
0
0 O
O O
A O
O
CD ?O
Q\ N '+ O
,
00 0 0 _

A CCJ
p N to O O N ?

N
O
O
O O w
N A 0.
.
W C w
ON O
CD N^
p O O
C?
O
O
A
O
00
n .-.

am O z p O
y - T J w p
O a N N O1 V
00 Uj w
0 p p
0
O C, O O A Cl
W Ua ? a
A N O A O OWi O ^CD O

O
O _
N 41
fJ
O
O
Cl O
O W
O W
O
v' a0
?O =" 'S w
y^ w (p
p O CD Cl O A O O

411 - a
A
N
A
to
to
d

'cl
A K P- ,O.`
p N In O
O W
N Q. •Y ',?
o °'
N
0
CD
C:) O W
CD W 00 ba
w
CD
N^ K C
O 0 O
Cl O
O O A .? O .
O A
O
-i
W
C
N
A?
m
a
0
H
H
A
o? r- o o r o 6 r
w
N

r.., 'w6 ? m w ?
o n O S?
? a
? in Q
O 0. v? o ;° o
? P-
? 'i7
w O w ? C W
ro
?. O N N 0 'O S R
j
? ?
' `?
7 O 5
m CD A
o ?

O ? n ? N
ti ?
y ? N

m Uo = a

w
N N N °
a Uo 'a
? N v ? n N
CL
. 7. n. o a
o

00 c
o c
?_
!?
O S
.. 0. 0. "? N '6
O H
w O? O
m p `? O C7 G..

Q <
a. °

O• o

? " ao n
O co
O
?
O G
O
? L7 ? 0.
O ? O
w d p' 't (J
`+ Su
O P ?
0. O h O fv
° O O
?
a o ?

0 0
N N O
0.n F

n
O
'J'am

n h

° N ?
C E O •' 0.^ Q
n
°
CL io a o
w ?
F
.
-. O .
. a. Ua

w m ? a, ? w
a
•O •9

C

'Tj o
O O

D m
x x
w
b7 °• o _
w
CO °. o cn f7
w C7
v? cn b ?
'""? O' n O p a' n O p ? n ? b

ti T

to C
0 0 0 7
'
n
o in o w
0o .J
w * ... 7
O
y ^
OQ C S n ^?S
n ? y w
h
?
3S3 a a
ts??? n
0 0 0 + a d 3 R
Cl o0 o w to a. C7 '' " ?
y '.
A A O "q
? .Ai C >v
y ? ?. < d A

z ?
A
rw
0 0 0 @ ?
O O O O
A
7
H ?
T
A ?
? ^S
O O Z
y
O A O ? O y
p
w w ? ? y
y
w

?y ti A
O O O . T ?
'
'

o
?^
°
w
?
-
w .
p
O
o: o w o
? C S n s

.S y y
N

o O0 o w v? a 0 y c
A
C n ?? L

J ?
n
0 0 0 ? 3
O
0o i
O N n 7

T

A'+
C'
N
b
m
n1.
fD
.y.
3
0
c
a
T
s
0
e?
>v
m
A?
7
a
m
c
a
T
'S
m
3
>v
A
Z
A
y
m
a
m
r I

f - -
i
I
I ?I15' 04

I
A _- ka -fOI .4-, -;6._. A? m?iL?. _
JJ
1 ttb A.X. .4;n.w ho ",fv 6h JAS t kt, MNntlti y

1
OK _ 4k -D
kc
Y " t a°s`
t?
N ¢ I1{..?IA ?µ?
?.? _ - G-II.O?WWM1Y_ _ W.^tlaf.? ?!L44.?"? _ MMC ?yy? _
f
? 11 . r
"ho twe, y Yw23 how. ty`°7 6.. TP-
?Gwsed
- - - - - - ceu-d. _.. vw, _ hn?Aa?t. ler- - Beau„ . - '-
lj min. mnl 7m pa.c.'?" ?vsW
?? RAAU.d Rl srha is g -P =. (?a? nab ?x .A.- b 4w Mw2
I m s4 h...

Gr 2 2A - 3 - dour. a * ilia d?taw c AaJI u^
i
II
poT _ Yu, aCe 6_
I YAW I Lot k? e d m a
lr?
14a -
?? Gddt.a . '?- ?, wuasF La+c(ucPr. -? ?.,r w( d,??.v t++ o?d
b, 4?, rrw as)

??15/04
u- 4o 1s
u?
DIoA/ T f/VE-0-1
?J4?0??;4j
?FJL i 1? Rv ( cL
X?/4 ?Z dy?7
/Z a Y St/??a </
? z5o2
"?,{-lam ?ar.?-3
Jay m???s
ArA -
XOY
g_ 3(54'
-µ -&YNS
D,tq? T7"It
??4vrJL
,Q s}' S?bBi,?y
-8. Sgso
-&t1, Tea
dNlt
N c.Dw Q
, .po-
?ucvvt
Fuw A?
CG ??
NG SW?.?
pp EA
/76.sy?
NL7wQ
P?
??45q
N CDwy
??C-b c)-f-
v?elo-ee;F-
-;?Dlbk
/00AA
715. 8394
/p? ??.?'-7?9X2Sd
93333-9ef VV x -2.10
85) to -43 5o v -t o
fr'Zd 4yyi X z r
733 -7S:?44 -Yz93
71 s . es94
73 3.7894 x?49
yio err- ??rz
7 3 3--7eOOO/ZY3
116 539 4
,753 -7Yyy x 2
9ia zs?-OV7-e-
?33 -?f 44 x Z15-
7 33 -700 X Z93
7t5-5394
yia z5"r ? ?y?
733 - 7644 X Zit-5-
7 33 - 78 ¢¢ X 2-93
'B-3654 and B-3693 Memo to file
Subject: B-3654 and B-3693 Memo to file
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 09:35:29 -0500
From: Drew Joyner <[e-mail]>
Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation
To: Richard Spencer <[e-mail]. mil>,
Beth Barnes <[e-mail]>, Jake Riggsbee <[e-mail]>,
Derrick Weaver <[e-mail]. nc.us>, Roy Shelton <[e-mail]>
CC: Jack Ward <[e-mail]>
SUBJECT:
Replacement of Bridge Nos. 29 and 53 on NC 55 over Mingo Swamp in
Harnett and Sampson Counties, TIP Project B-3654
Replacement of Bridge Nos. 211 over Raft Swamp, 207 over Holly
Swamp, and 210 over Saddle Tree Swamp on SR 1527 in Robeson
County, TIP Project B-3693
Attendees:
Richard Spencer - USACE
Beth Barnes - DWQ
Drew Joyner - NCDOT
Derrick Weaver - NCDOT
Roy Shelton - NCDOT
A meeting was held on January 15, 2004, to evaluate whether or
not the subject projects need to go through the Section 404/NEPA
Merger Process.
B-3654:
The Categorical Exclusion for B-3654 was completed on August 30,
2001. The recommended improvement was to replace the two bridges
in place and reroute traffic on an off-site detour. There has
been some opposition to the recommendation. NCDOT is now
reinvestigating alternatives. The two bridges are in close
proximity and are surrounded by high quality wetlands. After a
brief discussion of the potetial project impacts, the group
decided not take the project through the Merger process.
However, it was recommended that a Concurrence Point 2/2A/3
meeting be scheduled (perhaps a field meeting?) once full project
impacts are developed to discuss the alternatives, bridging, and
LEDPA with the Merger Team.
B-3693:
An agency field meeting took place on August 13, 2002, where the
Merger Team met and decided not to take the project through the
Merger process. However, it was recommended that a Concurrence
Point 2/2A/3 meeting be scheduled once full project impacts are
developed to discuss the alternatives, bridging, and LEDPA with
the Merger Team. NCDOT is still trying to work through some
issues with the alternatives. A Merger Team meeting will be
scheduled once those issues have been resolved.
Drew Joyner, P. E.
Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Phone: [phone] ext. 269
Fax: [phone]
1 of 1 1/20/2004 8:59 AM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 APPROVED:
Harnett-Sampson Counties
NC 55
Bridge Nos. 29 and 53 over Mingo Swamp
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-55(14)
State Project No. 8.1451501
T.I.P. No. B-3654
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
0 ??..?
5 0-Wil n D. Gilmore, P.E., M ger
O Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
0
0 OE o
0
?? 1r), ??r ?4
Nicholas L. Graf, P.?.?
Division Administrator, FHWA
VA j016 /
Harnett-Sampson Counties
NC 55
Bridge Nos. 29 and 53 over Mingo Swamp
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-55(14)
State Project No. 8.1451501
T.I.P. No. B-3654
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
August 2001
Documentation Prepared By Ko & Associates, P.C.
e.
Pill
L. J. rd, P.E.
Project Manager - Ko & Associates "' .
r?o, -
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
Thomas R. Kendig, AICP
Consultant Engineering Unit Head
tO avk ??
Robert Andrew Jo r, P. E.
Project Develop nt Engineer
2
Project Commitments
Harnett-Sampson Counties
NC 55
Bridge Nos. 29 and 53 over Mingo Swamp
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-55(14)
State Project No. 8.1451501
T.I.P. No. B-3654
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit #23 Conditions, the General Nationwide
Permit Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State
Consistency Conditions, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for
Bridge Demolition and Removal, General Certifications, and Section 401 Conditions of
Certification, the following special commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
NONE
Categorical Exclusion
August 2001
Green Sheet
Page 1 of 1
3
Harnett-Sampson Counties
NC 55
Bridge Nos. 29 and 53 over Mingo Swamp
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-55(14)
State Project No. 8.1451501
T.I.P. No. B-3654
Bridge No. 29 is located on NC 55 over Mingo Swamp approximately 0.3 mile west of
the Harnett-Sampson County Line. Bridge No. 53 is located on NC 55 over Mingo
Swamp on the Harnett-Sampson County Line. Bridge Nos. 29 and 53 are included in
the North Carolina Department of Transportation 2002-2008 Transportation
Improvement Program as B-3654. B-3654 is part of the Federal-Aid Bridge
Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial
environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal
"Categorical Exclusion".
1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 29 will be replaced at its existing location (Alternate 5A) with a new structure
approximately 120 feet (36.6 meters) long with a clear roadway width of 40 feet (12.2
meters). Bridge No. 53 will be replaced at its existing location (Alternate 5B) with a new
structure approximately 80 feet (24.4 meters) long with a clear roadway width of 40 feet
(12.2 meters). The immediate approaches will be 24 feet (7.2 meters) of pavement
with 8-foot (2.4-meter) shoulders including 4-foot (1.2-meter) paved and 4-foot (1.2-
meter) grassed. During the construction period, the existing bridges will be closed and
traffic will be routed along other existing roads. The current estimated cost of the
project, as shown in the NCDOT 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement Program, is
$690,000 including $90,000 for right-of-way and $600,000 for construction.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
NC 55 crosses over Mingo Swamp at the Harnett-Sampson County Line approximately
1.6 miles (2.6 kilometers) east of the junction of NC 55 and US 421. Development in
the immediate vicinity of Bridge Nos. 29 and 53 is sparse but residential development is
located along NC 55 east and west of the project area. None of this residential
development will be impacted by any of the alternatives studied. The maintenance
facility for C & D Farms is located between Bridge Nos. 29 and 53. This facility will not
be directly impacted by any of the studied alternatives, but travel service from the
maintenance facility to their farms will be hampered by the off-site detour alternatives.
NC 55 is classified as a Rural Major Collector in the Statewide Functional Classification
System.
4
NC 55 has a current pavement width of 20 feet (6.0 meters) with 8-foot (2.4-meter)
shoulders including 2 feet (0.6 meters) paved in the area of the bridges. The existing
bridges are in a roadway tangent section. The west approach to Bridge No. 29 is on a
curve from the north that becomes tangent approximately 175 feet (53.4 meters) from
the beginning of the bridge. The east approach to Bridge No. 53 is on a curve to the
south beginning approximately 175 feet (53.4 meters) from the end of the bridge. The
vertical grade on the west approach is falling towards a sag approximately 310 feet
(94.5 meters) from Bridge No. 29. The bridge is flat and the roadway across the
floodplain is almost flat with a slight rise to Bridge No. 53 on its west approach. Across
Bridge No. 53, the vertical grade is flat and begins rising on the east approach.
The traffic volumes on NC 55 at Mingo Swamp were 5,100 vehicles per day (vpd) in
1999 and are projected to be 10,700 vpd for the design year 2025. The volumes
include an estimated 4 % truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 4 % dual-tired (DT)
vehicles. The posted speed limit is 55 mph (88 kmph) in the vicinity of the bridge.
Bridge Nos. 29 and 53, as shown in Figure 2, each have an overall length of 61 feet
(18.6 meters) and a clear roadway width of 22 feet (6.6 meters). The existing two-lane
bridges have a reinforced concrete deck on steel girders supported by timber caps on
timber piles at various centers. The structures were constructed in 1936. There is no
posted restriction on weight limit for Bridge Nos. 29 and 53.
Bridge No. 29 has a sufficiency rating of 28.8 and Bridge No. 53 has a sufficiency rating
of 6.0 compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure and approaches.
No accidents were reported in the vicinity of Bridge Nos. 29 and 53 from January 1,
1998, to December 31, 2000.
There are no utilities attached to Bridge Nos. 29 and 53. An overhead power line
parallels the bridges and roadway on the north side and an underground telephone line
parallels the bridges and roadway on the south side. Utility conflicts should be
considered as light.
No public school bus crosses Bridge Nos. 29 and 53
III. ALTERNATIVES
The studied alternates were (1) to replace the structures at their existing location with a
temporary detour on the north or south side (Alternates 1-4), (2) to replace the
structures at their existing location closing NC 55 and utilizing an off-site detour
(Alternates 5A & 5B), and (3) to replace the structures at their existing location using
stage construction techniques that utilize the existing bridges as a temporary detour
(Alternates 6A & 6B). These alternatives are shown in Figures 3-10. The stage
5
construction alternates will cut approximately 5 feet (1.5 meters) off the side of Bridge
Nos. 29 and 53, reducing them to one-lane bridges. Traffic signals will be placed at
opposite ends of the bridges. Traffic will be stopped in one direction while the traffic in
the opposite direction crosses the bridges. Half of each new bridge will be constructed
while the traffic is handled on the existing one-lane bridge sections. Traffic will be
shifted to the new sections, the remainder of the existing bridges removed, and the
second half of the new bridges constructed. See Figure 11 for details of the
construction stages.
Given the wide, flat, black-water swamp characteristics of Mingo Swamp and the
existing tangent roadway section across the bridges with curves located approximately
175 feet (53.4 meters) east and west of the bridges, new location alternates are not
considered feasible or prudent. Based on preliminary hydrographic studies, the most
feasible option is to replace the existing bridge structures with new structures at their
existing alignment. Therefore, new location alternatives were removed from further
study.
The posted speed limit for the on-site detour on either side of the bridges is 40 mph (65
kmph) and the corresponding design speed for the on-site detours is 45 mph (70 kmph).
The posted speed limit for the new structures is 55 mph (88 kmph) and the
corresponding design speed is 60 mph (100 kmph). The grade of the new structures
will be approximately the same elevation of the existing structures.
The recommended replacement structure for Bridge No. 29 is a new bridge structure at
the existing location, approximately 120 feet (36.6 meters) long with a 40-foot (12.2-
meter) clear roadway width, two 12-foot (3.6-meter) lanes with 8-foot (2.4-meter)
shoulders. The recommended replacement structure for Bridge No. 53 is a new bridge
structure at the existing location, approximately 80 feet (24.4 meters) long with a 40-foot
(12.2-meter) clear roadway width, two 12-foot (3.6-meter) lanes with 8-foot (2.4-meter)
shoulders. The grade of the roadway over the new structures will be approximately the
same elevation as the existing bridges. The approaches to the bridges will have a
pavement width of 24 feet (7.2 meters) with 8-foot (2.4-meter) shoulders including 4-foot
(1.2-meter) paved. The design speed will be 60 mph (100 kmph). The alternates are
shown in Figures 3 through 10. [Each bridge replacement proposal was treated as a
separate alternative to allow flexibility in implementing the proposal for each bridge
individually or simultaneously.]
The No-Build or "do-nothing alternate was also considered but this choice would
eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not a desirable alternative due to
the traffic service provided by NC 55.
Investigation of the existing structures by the NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit
indicates that rehabilitation of the old bridges is not feasible due to their age and
deteriorated condition. The existing bridges are classified as structurally deficient.
6
V.
The recommended improvements are Alternates 5A and 5B (see Figures 7 & 8). Bridge
No. 29 will be replaced at its existing location (Alternate 5A) with a new structure
approximately 120 feet (36.6 meters) long with a clear roadway width of 40 feet (12.2
meters). Bridge No. 53 will be replaced at its existing location (Alternate 5B) with a new
structure approximately 80 feet (24.4 meters) long with a clear roadway width of 40 feet
(12.2 meters). The immediate approaches will be 24 feet (7.2 meters) of pavement with
8-foot (2.4-meter) shoulders including 4-foot (1.2-meter) paved and 4-foot (1.2-meter)
grassed. The design speed will be 60 mph (100 kmph). NC 55 at Bridge Nos. 29 and
53 will be closed to traffic during the construction period. Because the maintenance
facility for C & D Farms is located between Bridge Nos. 29 and 53, the bridges can not
be constructed simultaneously; consequently, the construction period could last up to 24
months. During the construction period, traffic will be routed along other existing roads.
The detour alternates are shown in Figure 12. Truck and regional traffic on NC 55 will
be detoured around Bridge Nos. 29 and 53 via US 421 and NC 242.
Strong consideration was given to Alternates 6A and 6B which used stage construction
techniques and the existing bridges to handle traffic during the construction period (see
page 6 for complete description of 6A & 6B & Figure 11 for stage construction details).
Alternatives 6A and 6B were not selected because of construction difficulty created by
stage constructing a cored slab bridge. Alternates 1-4 (on-site detours) were not
selected because of the impacts to the natural environment by constructing the on-site
detours .
The Division Three and Division Six Offices concur with the recommended
improvements.
VI. TRAFFIC DETOUR
The feasibility of road closure with an off-site detour was investigated. The traffic
volume on NC 55 east of the project area near its intersection with NC 242 drops to
2700 vpd. This implies that less than half of the 5,100 vpd currently using Bridge Nos.
29 and 53 is regional in nature. A study of the traffic volume inventory in the project
study area was used to estimate that most of the 5,100 vpd would experience an
average increase in trip length of approximately 2.5 miles if NC 55 was closed to traffic
during the construction period. Because the farm maintenance facility is located
between the two bridges, it will not be practical to close both bridges at the same time.
Therefore, the off-site detour will be in effect for approximately two years (one year to
construct each bridge). For the two-year construction period, the off-site detour is
estimated to have a road user cost of $3,000,000 (at 32 cents per vehicle-mile).
Nineteen residents attended the public involvement workshop held for the project on
8
W
April 5, 2001. The consensus of the residents supported the maintenance of traffic
during construction without an off-site detour. Four of the five residents that provided
written comments concerning the bridge replacement project were in opposition to
closing NC 55 and using an off-site detour.
The Division Six Office indicated that NC 55 is used frequently by emergency vehicles
and is also a hurricane evacuation route that is used as an exit for the one-way traffic
flow scenario for evacuating 1-40 traffic from the coastal areas.
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
Methods
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a
number of sources including applicable U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic
mapping (Dunn, NC 7.5 minute quadrangle), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping (7.5 minute quadrangle), Natural
Resources Conservation Service (formerly the Soils Conservation Service) soils
mapping (USDA 1985, 1994), and recent aerial photography (scale 1 inch=100 feet [2.5
centimeters = 30.5 meters]) furnished by KO and Associates.
The site was visited on August 31, 2000. The study corridor was walked and visually
surveyed for significant features. Plant community area calculations are based on right-
of-way boundaries and construction easements; jurisdictional area calculations are
based on approximate cut-and-fill boundaries. Actual impacts will be limited to
construction limits and require more detailed construction plans for impact calculations.
Special concerns evaluated in the field include 1) potential habitat for protected species
and 2) wetlands and water quality protection in the unnamed tributary and Mingo
Swamp.
The field work for this investigation was conducted by EcoScience Corporation
biologists Matthew T. Cusack and Ward Elis.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When
appropriate, community classifications were modified to better reflect field observations.
Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in Radford et aL (1968). When
appropriate, vascular plant nomenclature has been updated to better reflect recent
changes in plant taxonomy. Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) names follow
nomenclature found in Aulbach-Smith and de Kozlowski (1996). Jurisdictional areas
were evaluated using the three-parameter approach following U.S. Army Corps of
9
Engineers (COE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were
characterized according to a classification scheme established by Cowardin et al.
(1979). Habitat used by terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms, as well as expected
population distributions, were determined through field observations, evaluation of
available habitat, and supportive documentation (Martof et al. 1980, Webster et al.
1985, Menhinick 1991, Potter et al. 1980, Hamel 1992, Palmer and Braswell 1995,
Rohde et al. 1994). Water quality information for area streams and tributaries was
derived from available sources (DWQ 2000, DWQ 1998). Quantitative sampling was
not undertaken to support existing data.
The most current FWS listing of federal-protected species with ranges which extend into
Harnett and Sampson Counties (June 16, 2000) was obtained prior to initiation of the
field investigation. In addition, NHP records documenting presence of Federal- or
State-listed species were consulted before commencing the field investigation.
Project Area
The study corridor is located 1.5 miles (2.4 kilometers) east of the interchange of NC 55
and Interstate 95 near the township of Dunn, NC (Figure 1). The bridges are located
along NC 55 at the unnamed tributary and Mingo Swamp in a rural area of Harnett and
Sampson Counties. Mingo Swamp delineates the county line between southeastern
Harnett County and northwestern Sampson County. The study corridor spans the
floodplain, braided channels, and adjacent banks of Mingo Swamp.
Land use within the study corridor is primarily bottomland hardwood forest. Maintained
areas associated with commercial development and an area of recent timbering are
located between the two bridges to north and south of the study corridor, respectively.
Maintained powerline easements are located to the north and south of the existing
roadway. Mingo Swamp drains southward to bridge #53, and then southwestward out
of the study corridor. The unnamed tributary diverges from Mingo Swamp
approximately 1500 feet (457.2 meters) north of bridge #53, flows southwestward
around a terrace to bridge #29, and extends to a confluence with Mingo Swamp
approximately 500 feet (152.4 meters) downstream of the bridge.
Physiography and Soils
The study corridor is underlain by the Black Creek Geologic formation in Harnett
County, and is underlain by the Cape Fear Geologic formation in Sampson County.
Both formations are within the inner Coastal Plain physiographic province of North
Carolina. Topography is gently undulating, with wide floodplains and broad, rounded
interstream divides. The study corridor is located in the floodplain of Mingo Swamp.
Mingo Swamp is characterized by a steep floodplain slope on the east side and a
gradual, shallow floodplain slope on the west side. The unnamed tributary has low,
10
gentle slopes on both sides. Elevations in the study corridor range from a high of 190
feet (57.9 meters) National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) atop the eastern slope of
Mingo Swamp to a low of 160 feet (48.8 meters) NGVD near the water surface of the
swamp (Dunn, NC quadrangle). The broad floodplain extends out of the study corridor
to the west and southwest. .
The dominant soil mapping unit within the study corridor is Bibb loam (Typic
Fluvaquents), while Johnston loam (Cumulic Humaquepts), Marvyn loam (Typic
Halpludults), and Augusta fine sand loam (Aeric Endoaquults) are less common soils
which occur in the study corridor (USDA 1985, 1994).
The Bibb series is characterized as nearly level, poorly drained with moderate
permeability. The series typically occurs on floodplains and small, natural drainage
ways and is mapped adjacent to and underneath both bridges. The Bibb series is
considered to be hydric in Harnett and Sampson Counties (USDA 1996).
The Johnston series is characterized as nearly level and very poorly drained with
moderately rapid permeability. The series typically occurs on moderately broad
floodplains in conjunction with Bibb loam in Sampson County. Johnston soils are
considered to be hydric in Sampson County (USDA 1996).
The Marvyn series is characterized as sloping and well drained with moderate
permeability. The series typically occurs on pronounced drainage ways on uplands and
is mapped on the eastern slope of Mingo Swamp. In Sampson County. Marvyn soils
are considered to be non-hydric with inclusions of hydric Bibb loam (USDA 1996).
The Augusta series is characterized as nearly level and somewhat poorly drained with
moderate permeability. The series typically occurs on low stream terraces and is
mapped on the north side of NC 55 between the unnamed tributary and Mingo Swamp.
In Sampson County, Augusta soils are considered to be non-hydric with inclusions of
hydric Roanoke and Wehadkee loams (USDA 1996).
WATER RESOURCES
Waters Impacted
The study corridor is located within sub-basin 03-06-18 of the Cape Fear River Basin
(DWQ 2000). This area is part of USGS accounting unit 03030006 of the South
Atlantic-Gulf Coast Region. The section of Mingo Swamp crossed by the subject
bridges has been assigned Stream Index Number 18-68-12-2 by the N.C. Division of
Water Quality (DWQ 1998).
11
Stream Characteristics
Mingo Swamp and the unnamed tributary are part of a single blackwater swamp
system. This system is characterized by extended surface flooding with low flow
velocities over an unconsolidated bottom. The area supports an emergent bottomland
swamp forest community and patches of rooted aquatic vegetation. Both systems lack
a primary channel and consist of a braided network of channels. Swamp flow is
concentrated to pass under each bridge, but spreads back out into the braided network
downstream the bridges. On the day of the site visit, the floodplain containing both
Mingo Swamp and the unnamed tributary was completely flooded with water depths
ranging from less than 1 foot (0.3 meters) to over 5 feet (1.5 meters). Water clarity was
moderate during the field visit, considering that slight turbidity is common as a result of
tannins and detrital matter in blackwater swamp systems. The majority of the floodplain
exhibits wetland conditions including hydrophytic vegetation, presence of hydric soils,
and evidence of regular, prolonged inundation.
Best Usage Classifications and Water Quality
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the
existing or contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the
basin. A best usage classification of C sw has been assigned to Mingo Swamp (DWQ
1998). The designation C denotes that appropriate uses include aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
Secondary recreation refers to human body contact with waters on an infrequent or
incidental basis. The sw designation denotes that the stream has a flow regime and
physical chemistry characteristics that are typical of a swamp. No designated
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supply I
(WS-1), or Water Supply II (WS-11) waters occur within 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the
study corridor.
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) (previously known as the Division of
Environmental Management, Water Quality Section [DEM]) has initiated a whole basin
approach to water quality management for the 17 river basins within the state. Water
quality for the proposed study corridor is summarized in the river basin management
plan (DWQ 2000). There are no ambient monitoring or benthic macro-invertebrate
community sampling sites within 5 miles (8.0 kilometers) of the study corridor. Swamp
waters with low velocity and dissolved oxygen are difficult to sample for water quality
monitoring. Impairment of swamp waters is difficult to document, because low
invertebrate density, and low physical chemistry values are typical conditions for these
systems (DWQ 2000). There has not been sampling within Mingo Swamp, meaning
that its water quality has been Not Evaluated (DWQ 2000).
12
The Cape Fear River sub-basin 03-06-18 supports no major point-source dischargers
and three minor dischargers, although none are located upstream of the project bridge
(DWQ 2000). Total permitted flow for the three minor dischargers is 0.1 million gallons
per day (MGD) [0.38 million liters per day {MLD}]. Non-point source discharges in the
sub-basin include agriculture, urban runoff, construction, forestry, mining, onsite
wastewater disposal, solid waste disposal, and atmospheric deposition. Sedimentation
and nutrient inputs are major problems associated with non-point source discharges
and often result in fecal coliform, heavy metals, oil from roads and parking lots, and
increased nutrient levels in surface waters. There are no recent water quality chemical
data available to determine use support for this system, both the unnamed tributary and
Mingo Swamp are Not Evaluated for their designated uses (DWQ 2000).
Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
General Impacts
Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized
through implementation of a stringent erosion control schedule and the use of best
management practices. The contractor will follow contract specifications pertaining to
erosion control measures as outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article 107-13
entitled "Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution" (NCDOT, Specifications for Roads
and Structures). These measures include the use of dikes, berms, silt basins, and other
containment measures to control runoff; elimination of construction staging areas in
floodplains and adjacent to waterways; re-seeding of herbaceous cover on disturbed
sites; management of chemicals (herbicides, pesticides, de-icing compounds) with
potential negative impacts on water quality; and avoidance of direct discharges into
steams by catch basins and roadside vegetation.
The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of pre-project stream flows
in the unnamed tributary and Mingo Swamp, thereby protecting the integrity of these
waterways. Long-term impacts resulting from construction are expected to be
negligible. In order to minimize impacts to water resources, NCDOT Best Management
Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface Waters will, be strictly enforced during the
entire life of the project.
Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
There is little potential for components of the bridges to be dropped into "waters of the
United States." The entire length of Bridge Nos. 29 and 53 span over water. Therefore,
temporary fill potential is estimated to be 99.3 cubic yards (75.9 cubic meters) of bridge
material. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal
(BMP-BDR) must be applied for the removal of this bridge and no temporary fill is
anticipated.
13
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Plant Communities
Two distinct plant communities were identified within the study corridor: bottomland
hardwood forest and urban/disturbed land. These plant communities are described
below.
Bottomland Hardwood Forest - Bottomland hardwood forest occurs on the floodplain
of Mingo Swamp. Within the study corridor, this community is dominant in areas
outside of man-created disturbances such as power lines, commercial property, and the
existing bridges and roadway facility. The sparse canopy includes bald cypress
(Taxodium distichum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), willow oak (Quercus
phellos), swamp tupelo (Nyssa sylvatica), and red maple (Acer rubrum). The
understory includes winged elm (Ulmus alata), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), tag alder
(Alnus serrulata), sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), silver maple (Acer saccharinum),
and water hickory (Carya aquatica). A dense ground cover occurs in areas where
flooding is not permanent. Groundcover species include sweet pepperbush (Clethra
alnifolia), soft rush (Juncus effusus), green catbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), Nepal
microstegium (Eulalia viminea), and cane (Arundinaria gigantea).
The community has been disturbed by recent timbering (less than 5 years ago) south of
NC 55 and between the two bridges. Canopy, sub-canopy, and large shrub
components have been completely removed, and successional regrowth has been slow
due to significant periods of inundation. Groundcover species are dominant, with low
shrubs interspersed throughout.
A single species of submerged aquatic vegetation, smarweed (Polygonum sp.), grows
in deeper areas of open water throughout the swamp. Smartweed typically grows in
lakes and swamps in water that is 4 feet (1.2 meters) in depth or deeper (Aulbach-Smith
and de Kozlowski 1996).
Urban/Disturbed Land - Urban/disturbed land includes roadside margins, commercial
development with associated hardened surfaces and maintained vegetation, and power
line corridors. Invasive weeds are present in roadside margins and utility right-of-ways.
Common species observed include crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis), clover (Lespedeza
sp.), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), henbit (Lamium amplexicaule), day flower
(Commelina sp.), ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron), giant cane, Nepal
microstegium, bracken fern (Pteridium aquillinum), blackberry (Rubus betulifolia), dog
fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), pokeweed
(Phytolacca americana), black willow (Salix nigra), mulberry (Morus sp.), multiflora rose
(Rosa multiflora), red maple, and sweetgum. Residential lots, as well as roadside
14
margins, are planted with Bermuda grass (Cynadon dactylon) and blue grass (Poa sp.).
Plant Communities within the Study Corridor
Plant community areas are estimated based on the amount of each plant community
present within the projected right-of way. Permanent impacts are considered to be
those impacts that occur within proposed permanent right-of-way boundaries.
Temporary impacts are those impacts that occur between the right-of-way boundaries
and construction easements. Table 1 summarizes potential impacts to plant
communities resulting from project alternatives.
Impacts to plant communities are less for Alternates 5A and 5B because off-site detours
produce no temporary impacts. Among alternatives with on-site detours, the northern
alternatives (Alternates 1 and 3) involve smaller permanent impacts to the bottomland
hardwood forest community than the southern alternatives (Alternates 2 and 4).
Permanent impacts to plant communities resulting from bridge replacements are
generally restricted to narrow strips adjacent to the existing bridges and roadway
approach segments. The total potential impacts to plant communities based on right-of-
way boundaries for the proposed bridges are primarily to bottomland hardwood forest
(65 percent of potential impacts).
From an ecological perspective, impacts of upgrading existing road facilities are
minimal. No new fragmentation of plant communities will be created, as the project will
result only in relocation of ecotonal boundaries. Also, much of the alignment is currently
bounded by a relatively wide, cleared-and-maintained right-of-way, and utility lines.
Therefore, the proposed project may only claim narrow strips of adjacent natural
communities. Roadside forest ecotones typically serve as vectors for invasive species
into local natural communities. An example of an undesirable invasive species utilizing
roadsides is kudzu. The establishment of a hardy groundcover on road shoulders as
soon as practicable will limit the availability of construction areas to invasive and
undesirable plants.
15
N
d
a?+
U
N
t
N
d
U
to
C
-o
C
d
N
d
Q
L
m
m
N
T
N
N
t6
C
Y
Q
C
L_
3
N
d
w
c
3
E
O
U
CC
f0
G
c0
7
'D
O
m
L
Q
d
a
m
0 O M

r
O
°
F
.--
rn
N
'w
M O
ID C
R0?
N
OM
OM
O
?
(
D
0 oo a
Q c
O
o
z
m
O O O V
- V
a
E .v
o o
° o ?v
o
m
F
N C N
F'
Q M
w
Q N O N N
N
i0 D '? C
10
0 V
r N
l? (O
w
F- v °m E ?O °O ?O
° °
C L a
w U
)
t0
a
E °o °o 0
0
F
° co(D o
°
f- O O N 0
M

r' O N
? C
N
a m mcO (pv LOo

E w ID
E M
00 N
00 O
`-O
N N o
c= N
CL
0

z ?
(0
r N C4
Q
E N
° O N
° O V
? O
N
H
N
N
? O
E p LL

a
J
O O L?

? O
03 J
2 O
F-
c co
?
m
p
R
a
mu
M N
N O
O M

F
° °o °o °o

m ?
U) oa) C
N

01 ?It
? C
N
Ot?y
NO
OM
m
a? E °o °o °o
C m
`Q °
`
a
gym
Q
O
m

0 O
E
a>
F
m O M h N V
° O O O o o

Q
w
K Q 0

N L)
N
t6

OM

M?

`-7

w 4t
N N
E
° O
° O
O
Q C .? N

O
U)
w m
° o
E
a?
F
MOM ON O?
°
F- N O 0 0 N c
O
C
7
N
° N
c
m
M
°??n
o
`°N
M
?r
ia0? E 0 0 0 O
` O m N
., w o a
Q C L
Oo
?

O 0 0
V V
O d
`- V
d
E ?o °o ?o
N
F-
T
y

E O
LL
J
E o E
o o? F
=
3 2 0
c H
o
D. Z 7
0 O
C
N
N N
7 ?
L) 3
N N
a) 6
4 O.
N E
a c
m ?
E
o E
N O
C U
O C
_ m
p a
C N
N L
N ~
3
ai
C ?
O
U L
7 L
N m
c N
° a
U O
m
0) o
U
N
rn
c
3
7
O N
C
O O
a U
N U
N m
C N
O T
m 9

a a
U
Q y
N ?
U_
(6 a
C C
m .O
?
'U N
7
N
6
p C N
z ° E
I
Wildlife
Terrestrial
No mammal signs (tracks, scat, etc) or sightings were noted within the study corridor
during this investigation. However, opportunistic and characteristic species which are
expected to frequent woodlands and fringe areas include cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus
floridanus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginianus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), beaver
(Castor canadensis), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), mink (Mustela vison), Norway rat
(Rattus norvegicus), house mouse (Mus musculus), and golden mouse (Ochrotomys
nuttalli).
Birds observed within or adjacent to the corridor include Carolina chickadee (Poecile
carolinensis), tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor), Carolina wren (Thryothorus
ludovicianus), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), great egret (Ardea albs), and
pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus). Suitable habitat exists for other species,
such as summer tanager (Piranga rubra), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), rufus-sided
"eastern" towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), eastern wood pewee (Contopus virens),
Acadian flycatcher (Empidonax virescens), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), red-
shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), yellow-rumped warbler
(Dendroica coronata), white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis), song sparrow
(Melospiza melodia), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), eastern screech owl (Otus
asio), American robin (Turdus migratorius), ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula),
belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon), dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), American crow
(Corvus brachyrhynchos), and indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea).
No terrestrial reptile or amphibian species were.documented within the study corridor.
Suitable habitat exists for eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), Carolina anole (Anolis
carolinensis), eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), broadhead skink (Eumeces
laticeps), five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), worm snake (Carphophis amoenus), rat
snake (Elaphe obsoleta), eastern kingsnake (Lampropeltis getulus), brown snake
(Storeria dekayi), eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), and copperhead
(Agkistron contortrix).
Aquatic
Aquatic reptiles or amphibians observed include green frog (Rana clamitans), painted
turtle (Chrysemys picta), and spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata). Mingo Swamp provides
suitable habitat for aquatic and semi-aquatic reptiles including snapping turtle (Chelydra
serpentina), yellowbelly slider (Trachemys scripta), river cooter (Pseudemys concinna),
brown water snake (Nerodia taxispilota), redbelly water snake (Nerodia erythrogaster),
cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus), eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens),
17
marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum), southern dusky salamander
(Desmognathus auriculatus), mud salamander (Pseudotriton montanus), southern
cricket frog (Acris gryllus), and pickerel frog (Rana palustris).
No sampling was undertaken in the unnamed tributary or Mingo Swamp to determine
fishery potential. Visual surveys of the tributary and Mingo Swamp did not reveal the
presence of minnows, molluscan fauna, or other aquatic life; however, species which
may be present within Mingo Swamp include dusky shiner (Notropis cummingsae),
bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi), and
margined madtom (Noturus insignis). Potential game fish which may be present within
the study corridor include redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus) and largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides) (Menhinick 1991, Rohde et al. 1994).
The study corridor is located within the Coastal Plain and includes the crossing of a
stream delineated on the most recent USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle. For
these reasons, anadromous fish passage should be considered in the timing of any
proposed in-stream activities associated with bridge replacement. Mingo Swamp is a
tributary to the Cape Fear River, so there is a possibility of shortnose sturgeon among
other, more common anadromous species migrating through Mingo Swamp during
scheduled bridge activities. Design and scheduling of bridge replacement should avoid
the necessity of in-stream activities during the spring migration period for anadromous
fish species (February 1 to June 15) within the Cape Fear River and tributaries thereof,
including Mingo Swamp.
Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, the proposed bridge
replacements will not result in significant loss or displacement of known terrestrial
animal populations. No significant habitat fragmentation is expected since most
improvements will be restricted to existing roadside margins. Construction noise and
associated disturbances will have short-term impacts on avifauna and migratory wildlife
movement patterns. However, long-term impacts are expected to be negligible.
Potential down-stream impacts to aquatic habitats will be avoided by bridging the
systems to maintain regular flow and stream integrity. Short-term impacts associated
with turbidity and suspended sediments will affect benthic populations. Temporary
impacts to downstream habitats from increased sediment during construction will be
minimized by the implementation of stringent erosion control measures.
SPECIAL TOPICS
Waters of the United States
Areas within the floodplain of the unnamed tributary and Mingo Swamp are subject to
18
jurisdictional consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as "waters of the
United States" (33 CFR section 328.3). Mingo Swamp (including the unnamed
tributary) can be characterized as a palustrine system with broad-leaved deciduous
trees, and seasonal to semi-permanent inundation (PF01C and PF01F) (Cowardin et
a/. 1979). No discernible stream morphology was observed for the tributary or Mingo
Swamp.
Only one wetland community is included within alternative right-of-ways: bottomland
hardwood forest. Project design plans call for bridging at the deepest point of the
swamp. Linear distance of "stream" involved with each alternative has been determined
by the width of the bridge. Waters of the United States under each bridge (0.04 acre
[0.01 hectare]) will be impacted due to shading. Table 2 summarizes potential impacts
to jurisdictional areas.
All alternatives result in permanent impacts to approximately 0.3 acre (0.1 hectare) of
waters of the United States. Additional permanent encroachment beyond design plans
will be avoided. Alternates.5A and 5B avoid temporary impacts to waters of the United
States; Alternate 1 results in intermediate impacts (0.6 acre [0.2 hectare]); and
Alternates 2-4 result in impacts ranging from 0.8 to 1.1 acre (0.3 to 0.4 hectare).
Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344)
are defined by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic
vegetation, and evidence of hydrology at or near the surface for a portion (12.5 percent)
of the growing season (DOA 1987). Mingo Swamp, the unnamed tributary, and the
adjacent bottomland hardwood forest all satisfy the three-parameter approach outlined
by the COE (DOA 1987; see attached Routine Wetland Determination data forms).
19
N
N
d
Y
CC
m
cu
M
N
N
O
a
O
a
T
Q
d
U
f6
Q.
E
T
R
Y
C
d
O
Q.
N
f6
N
R
R
c
O
Y
U
N
3
w
f6 N
? U
C d
R
r N
? U
3 m
o ?
L Y
? C
?a
N
N C
d N
.Q
t0 p
N
CN
F ?

m
N
J # C
h
O O O
« NU
A O 10 10N
ry r
p

c?m E O

N o ?
0.
Q G L
o0
z
z
°
n ryo v
E ry o
F
v

a

° N O N d
F- ? O -O 10 10 [Np
N M N
C?co
E
IA
°O
°.N O a
Z cL
= °0
F N ?

o. ?m
N mcryi
E I ? ° O
F
v
ON
O
mo o 0
0
F

N
0 # C
O d N
? O? E N ? , o
0
dm
` m
y
o CL
QO

0
Z

`O
0 N
?(O
N V
?N
D 1 ? ° O
E

J ? O)
Q ? F 9
w3a
`

?
F- Z o
L a

w
0 w
° -
a0
a

co V

p N

c 7 ?
F In vi oo
[? J C
d 0# m I (1 N
O m
c m E N n ° o
d
m`
Qo

z
m
O
D
N N
N O
E n
F

N 7
N
M ?
F p
I l0 Oci
Q J
N 0M c
0
O 10
N # C
N
?' 1 (Np
O ?
m E N n ° o
d
m
T (
o

m
Q
N ?
N
E r
F-

m v
pN
n
N?pj

F zwl

N

J # _
C
?
O N N
N?9
` N
E N(NO ??
°
c ? m r o
a r
w o
M °'
a
_
C L
Q
om
O
?
z
t0
`O
O (NO
N
W N
O I ? ° O
E
F-

J W 0l
?
aF-F
F a U
w3a a
? m
?'
owe a
a0
wY
O o
c
N N
N `
U 3
N
U
o m
N .?
? L
? N
a N
a? 3
m ?
N O
O
C
O
C O
N O_
3 ?
c ?
o a)
U
Q
(D
C
O N
U N
a) U
E O
N
(O
Y p)
.3
_ U
7 `
O N
N C
-0 O
O U
y a)
N O)
C
O N
Co I >1
-0
N
(6 N
Q U
y
N
U
1-0
C C
O
._
Q U N
O N N
(6
O C N
z ° E
O
N
Within the bottomland hardwood forest, wetland vegetation includes a canopy of bald
cypress, swamp tupelo, red maple, sweetgum, and willow oak. The understory includes
winged elm, tag alder, sweet bay, silver maple, and water hickory. Groundcover
species include sweet pepperbush, soft rush, and cane. These plants are growing on
Bibb soils which exhibit values, chromas, and mottles characteristic of hydric soils.
Evidence of wetland hydrology includes surface inundation, water marks on trees,
drainage patterns, oxidized root channels, and water-stained leaves.
There is little potential that bridge components may be dropped into waters of the
United States during construction. No temporary fill associated with bridge removal is
proposed. If in-stream activities are planned, this project can be classified as Case 2,
where no in-stream work may occur during moratorium periods due to anadromous fish
migration. It is recommended that NCDOT coordinate with the various resource
agencies during project planning to ensure that all concerns regarding bridge demolition
are resolved.
Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not proposed for this project due to the limited nature of
project impacts. However, utilization of BMPs is recommended in an effort to minimize
impacts. Temporary impacts to floodplains associated with the construction activities
could be mitigated by replanting disturbed areas with native wetland species and
removal of temporary fill material upon project completion. Fill or alteration of streams
may require compensatory mitigation in accordance with 15 NCAC 2H .0506(h). A final
determination regarding mitigation rests with the COE and DWQ.
Permits
This project is being processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines. The COE has made available Nationwide Permit
(NWP) #23 (61 FR 65874, 65916; December 13, 1996) for CEs due to expected
minimal impact. DWQ has made available a General 401 Water Quality Certification for
NWP #23. However, authorization for jurisdictional area impacts through use of this
permit will require written notice to DWQ. In the event that NWP #23 will not suffice,
minor impacts attributed to bridging and associated approach improvements are
expected to qualify under General Bridge Permit 031 issued by the Wilmington COE
District. Notification to the Wilmington COE office is required if this general permit is
utilized.
21
Protected Species
Federal Protected Species
Species with the Federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T), officially
proposed (P) for such listing, or Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance (T[S/A]) are
protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.). The term "Endangered species" is defined as "any species which is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range", and the term
"Threatened species" is defined as "any species which is likely to become an
Endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range" (16 U.S.C. 1532). The term "Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance"
is defined as a species which is not "Endangered" or "Threatened", but "closely
resembles an Endangered or Threatened species" (16 U.S.C. 1532). The following
Federal-protected species are listed for Harnett (H) and Sampson (S) Counties
(February 26, 2001 FWS list):
Table 3. Federally protected species with ranges extending into Harnett and Sampson
Counties.
Common Name
American alligator
Red-cockaded woodpecker
Pondberry
Cape Fear shiner
Small-whorled pogonia
Rough-leaved loosestrife
Scientific Name County Status
Alligator mississippiensis S T (S/A)
Picoides borealis S/H E
Lindera melissifolia S E
Notropis mekistocholas H E
Isotria medeoloides H T
Lysimachia asperulaefolia H E
American Alligator - American alligator is listed as threatened based on the similarity
in appearance to other Federal-listed crocodilians; However, there are no other
crocodilians within North Carolina. American alligators can be found in a variety of
freshwater to estuarine aquatic habitats including swamp forests, marshes, large
streams and canals, and ponds and lakes. The bottland hardwood swamp forest
provides suitable habitat for American Alligator. NHP records indicate that American
alligators have not been documented within 2.0 miles (3.2 kilometers) of the study
corridor and none were observed during field investigations.
T S/A species are not subject to Section 7 consultation and a biological conclusion is
22
not required. However, this project is not expected to affect the American alligator.
Red-cockaded Woodpecker - This small woodpecker (7 to 8.5 inches [17.8 to 21.6
centimeters] long) has a black head, a prominent white cheek patch, and black-and-
white barred back. Males often have red markings (cockades) behind the eye, but the
cockades may be absent or difficult to see (Potter et al. 1980). Primary habitat consists
of mature to over-mature southern pine forests dominated by loblolly (Pinus taeda),
long-leaf (P. palustris), slash (P. ellioth), and pond (P. serotina) pines (Thompson and
Baker 1971). Nest cavities are constructed in the heartwood of living pines, generally
older than 70 years, that have been infected with red-heart disease. Nest cavity trees
tend to occur in clusters, which are referred to as colonies (FWS 1985). The
woodpecker drills holes into the bark around the cavity entrance, resulting in a shiny,
resinous buildup around the entrance that allows for easy detection of active nest trees.
Pine flatwoods or pine-dominated savannas which have been maintained by frequent
natural fires serve as ideal nesting and foraging sites for this woodpecker.
Development of a thick understory may result in abandonment of cavity trees.
The bottomland hardwood forest community located within the study corridor is not
suitable habitat for red-cockaded woodpecker. The sparse canopy is dominated by
hardwoods, which do not provide adequate foraging or nesting habitat for this species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION- Red-cockaded woodpecker prefers pine
dominated woodlands greater than 70 years old. The study corridor does not
support a pine-dominated community older than 70 years; study corridor forest
land is dominated by a hardwood canopy. NHP records indicate that there are
no known nesting colonies within 2.0 miles (3.2 kilometers) of the project
corridor, and there is no documentation of the red-cockaded woodpecker in the
vicinity of the project corridor. Based upon available information and habitat
evaluation, the proposed project will not affect red-cockaded woodpecker. NO
EFFECT
Pondberry - Pondberry is a deciduous shrub with a limited distribution occurring in two
portions of the southeastern United States: the Mississippi Valley and the Coastal Plain
of the Carolinas (FWS 1993). Within the two portions of its range, pondberry is known
to occupy different habitats. While pondberry is known from hardwood depressional
areas with perched water tables in the Mississippi Valley, in the Carolinas, pondberry
occurs along margins of sink holes, ponds, and depressions in pinelands (FWS 1993).
Within North Carolina, potential habitat for pondberry is described as: 1) shallow ponds
with a sandy substrate, especially sites containing the shrub pondspice (Litsea
aestivalis); and 2) Carolina bays containing a combination of pond cypress (Taxodium
ascendens) with loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and red maple (Leonard 1995).
The study corridor supports a bottomland hardwood forest. No depressions, sink holes,
23
shallow ponds, or Carolina bays occur within the study corridor. Associated vegetation
for pondberry (pondspice and pond cypress) was not documented within the study
corridor. No suitable habitat or specimens of pondberry were observed during field
investigations.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Pondberry typically occurs in sink-hole
depressions, Carolina bays, or suitable ponded depressions. On-site surveys
found no suitable habitat for pondberry. NHP has no documentation of
pondberry within 2.0 miles (3.2 kilometers) of the project corridor. Based on
available information and habitat evaluation, this project will not affect pondberry.
NO EFFECT
Cape Fear Shiner - The Cape Fear shiner is a small (to 2 inches [5.1 centimeters]),
moderately stocky minnow. It is pale silvery yellow with a black band along the sides
and the moderate-sized eyes are located on the sides of the head (FWS 1988). This
species is distinguished from all other Notropis by having a coiled alimentary tract that is
visible through the wall of the belly (Rohde et al. 1994). Food items probably include
bottom detritus, diatoms, and other periphytes (FWS 1988). Habitat of the Cape Fear
shiner is generally slow pools, riffles, and runs over gravel, cobble, and boulders (FWS
1988). Little is known about the Cape Fear shiner's life history. Present distribution
(November 1988) includes portions of Randolph, Chatham, Lee, Moore, and Harnett
Counties (FWS 1988). As of 10 December 1993, the N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission has designated Critical Habitat for this species in the Deep River, from its
confluence with the Haw River (on the Chatham/Lee County line) to the NC Route 42
bridge (also on the Chatham/Lee County line). The known populations of the shiner all
occur within the Cape Fear River and its primary tributaries (FWS 1988) at or above the
Fall Zone (the dividing line between the Piedmont and Coastal Plain physiographic
provinces). These four populations occur in brown water (originating in the Piedmont)
systems with coarse substrates which have higher flow velocities, are richer with
organic matter, and support different benthic macro-invertebrate communities than
blackwater (originating in the Coastal Plain) systems.
The unnamed tributary and Mingo Swamp are both black water swamp systems
characterized by low flow and unconsolidated bottoms, unsuitable habitat for this
species. With the current distribution of the species, recruitment into the Mingo Swamp
watershed is unlikely:
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Cape Fear Shiner prefers slow pools, riffles, and
runs over gravel, cobble, and boulders in brown water stream systems. The slow
moving, black water swamp system within the study corridor does not provide
suitable habitat for the species. There are no documented occurrences of the
species within 2 miles (3.2 kilometers). Based upon available information and
24
habitat evaluation, the proposed project is not expected to effect Cape Fear
shiner. NO EFFECT
Small Whorled Pogonia - The small-whorled pogonia is a terrestrial orchid growing to
approximately 10 inches (25.4 centimeters) high. Five or six drooping, pale dusty
green, widely rounded leaves with pointed tips are arranged in a whorl at the apex of
the greenish or purplish, hollow stem. Typically a single, yellowish green, nearly
stalkless flower is produced just above the leaves; a second flower rarely may be
present. Flowers consist of three petals, which may reach lengths of 0.7 inch,
surrounded by 3 narrow sepals up to 1 inch long. Flower production, which occurs from
May to July, is followed by the formation of an erect ellipsoidal capsule 0.7 to 1.2 inch
long (Massey et al. 1983). This species may remain dormant for periods up to 10 years
between blooming periods (Newcomb 1977). The small whorled pogonia is
widespread, occurring from southern Maine to northern Georgia, but is very local in
distribution. In North Carolina, this species is found scattered locations in the
Mountains, Piedmont and Sandhills (Amoroso 1999). Small whorled pogonia is found in
open, dry deciduous or mixed pine-deciduous forest, or along stream banks. Examples
of areas providing suitable conditions (open canopy and shrub layer with a sparse herb
layer) where small whorled pogonia has been found include old fields, pastures,
windthrow areas, cutover forests, old orchards, and semi-permanent canopy breaks
along roads, streams, lakes, and cliffs (Massey et al. 1983). In the Mountains and
Piedmont of North Carolina, this species is usually found in association with white pine
(Pious strobus) (Weakley 1993).
Hydrology for the bottomland hardwood forest ranges from seasonal to permanent
inundation, and the pogonia occurs in dry areas. The breaks in the sparse canopy are
all associated with standing water, and commercial areas are regularly maintained and
do not provide suitable habitat. No white pine was observed within the study corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: The small-whorled pogonia typically occurs in
open, dry deciduous or mixed pine/deciduous forests. These communities do not
occur within the study corridor. The bottomland hardwood forest ranges from
seasonal to permanent inundation, with water depths of several feet. Associated
vegetation for the pogonia was not documented within the study corridor.
According to NHP records, small-whorled pogonia does not occur within 2 miles
(3.2 kilometers). Based on available information and habitat evaluation, the
proposed project will not effect small-whorled pogonia. NO EFFECT
Rough-leaved Loosestrife - The rough-leaved loosestrife is a rhizomatous perennial
herb that often reaches the height of 2 feet (0.6 meters). Plants are dormant in the
winter, with the first leaves appearing in late March or early April. The triangular leaves
typically occur in whorls of 3 or 4. Leaves are typically sessile, entire, 0.3-0.4 inches
(0.8-1.0 centimeters) wide, broadest at the base, and have three prominent principal
25
veins (Godfrey and Wooten 1981). These leaf characteristics help differentiate this
species from Loomis' loosestrife (L. loomish), which may occur in the same areas as
rough-leaved loosestrife (Kral 1983). Five-lobed yellow flowers, approximately 0.6
inches (1.5 centimeters) across, are produced on a loose terminal raceme 1-4 inches
(2.5-10.2 centimeters) long (Godfrey and Wooten 1981). Rough-leaved loosestrife is
reported to flower from late May to June (FWS 1995). Seeds are formed by August, but
the small, rounded capsules do not dehisce until October. Populations also reproduce
asexually from rhizomes, with rhizomes producing several shoots. The rough-leaved
loosestrife is endemic to Coastal Plain and Sandhill regions of the Carolinas, and is
currently known to be extant in 12 counties in North Carolina and one county in South
Carolina. Typical habitat of the rough-leaved loosestrife consists of the wet ecotone
between longleaf pine savannas and wet, shrubby areas, where lack of canopy
vegetation allows abundant sunlight into the herb layer. This species is fire maintained;
suppression of naturally occurring fires has contributed to the loss of habitat in our state.
In the absence of fire, rough-leaved loosestrife may persist for several years in an area
with dense shrub encroachment; however, reproduction is reported to be suppressed
under these conditions, leading to eventual local extirpation (FWS 1995). Kral (1983)
indicates that rough-leaved loosestrife is typically found growing in black sandy peats or
sands with a high organic content. Because rough-leaved loosestrife is an obligate
wetland species (Reed 1988), drainage of habitat also has an adverse effect on the
plant.
The hydrological regime, soil chemistry, and lack of periodic fire in the study corridor
communities result in unsuitable habitat for the loosestrife. No specimens of loosestrife
were observed during field investigations.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: The rough-leaved loosestrife requires a fire
maintained community typically characterized by pine savannas and adjacent
shrub-scrub wetland ecotones. These conditions and habitat types do not occur
with the study corridor, and the bottomland hardwood forest does not have a
significant pine component. The bottomland hardwood forest is not maintained
by fire. According to NHP records, the species does not occur within 2 miles (3.2
kilometers) of the study corridor. Based upon available information and habitat
evaluation, the proposed project will not effect rough-leaved loosestrife. NO
EFFECT
Federal Species of Concern - The February 26, 2001 FWS list also includes a
category of species designated as "Federal species of concern" (FSC) in Harnett (H)
and Sampson (S) Counties. A species with this designation is one that may or may not
be listed in the future (formerly C2 candidate species or species under consideration for
listing for which there is insufficient information to support listing).
NHP files document an occurrence of spring-flowering goldenrod 1.8 miles (2.9
26
kilometers) south/southwest of the study corridor. There is no suitable habitat for this
species (mesic to moist pinelands, pocosin ecotone) within or adjacent to the study
corridor. The proposed bridge replacements are not expected to effect spring-flowering
goldenrod. The FSC designation provides no Federal protection under the ESA for
species listed.
State Protected Species
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state list as Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Special Concern (SC), Candidate (C), Significantly Rare (SR), or
Proposed (P) (Amoroso 1999, LeGrand and Hall 1999) receive limited protection under
the North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North
Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202 et seq.). NHP records document
an occurrence of American bluehearts (Buchnera americana) approximately 1.9 miles
(3.1 kilometers) south/southwest of the study corridor. American bluehearts is a
Candidate species for protection in the State of North Carolina, and has no official
Federal status. The Candidate designation denotes a species that is likely to merit
listing as Endangered or Threatened if present land use trends continue (Amoroso
1999). There is not suitable habitat (glades, open forest, and streambanks over mafic
or calcareous rock) within or adjacent to the study corridor. The proposed bridge
replacements are not expected to effect American bluehearts.
27
Table 4. Federal Species of Concern
Common Name Scientific Name County Potential State
Habitat Status-
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis HIS no SC
Rafinesques' big-eared bat Corynorhinus rafinesquh S yes SC(PT)
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus S no SR(PSC)
Northern pine snake Pituophis m. melanoleucus H no SC
Mimic glass lizard Ophisaurus mimicus S no SC(PT)
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia mason HIS yes T(PE)
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis canosa H no T(PE
Carolina gopher frog Rana capito capito S no SC(PT)
American sand burrowing mayfly Dolania amencana S yes SR
Venus flytrap Dionea muscipula S no C-SC
Butternut Juglans cinerea S no W5
White wicky Kalmia cuneata S no E-SC/PC
Pondspice Litsea aestivalis S no C
Carolina bogmint Macbridea caroliniana S no T
Spring-flowering goldenrod Solidago vema HIS no T
A Liverwort Cylindrocolea andersonii S yes W2
Georgia indigo-bush Amorpha g. vargeorgiana H no E
Sandhills milkvetch Astragalus michauxii H no T
Sandhills bog lily Lilium indolae H no T
Savanna cowbane Oxypolis temate H no W1
Carolina grass-of-parnassus Pamassia caroliniana H no E
Mabry's (Wavyleaf) wild quinine Parthenium integritolium var H no W1
mabryanum
Sandhills pyxie-moss Pyxidanthera barbulata var. H no E
brevitolia
Sun-facing coneflower Rudbeckia heliopsidis H no E
Pickering's dawnflower Stylisma p. var. pickeringii H no E
Carolina aspholdel Tofteldia glabra H no C
Roughleaf yellow-eyed grass Xyris scabrifolia H no C
'State Status Codes: E - Endangered W -Watch List
T - Threatened SR - Significantly Rare
SC - Special Concern C - Candidate
PE - Proposed Endangered PT - Proposed Threatened
28
VIII. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR
Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their
undertakings (federally-funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and to afford the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on such
undertakings. The project was coordinated with the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) in accordance with the Advisory Council's regulations and
FHWA procedures.
B. Historic Architecture
A field survey of the area of potential effect (APE) was conducted by Ko and Associates
on February 29, 2000. All structures within the APE were photographed on February 29,
2000, and submitted for review. Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT staff architectural historian,
reviewed the maps and photographs. On June 1, 2000, representatives of NCDOT,
FHWA and the State Historic Preservation Office reviewed properties in the project's
area of potential effect and concluded there are no properties, including Bridge Nos. 29
and 53, considered eligible for the National Register and a concurrence form was
signed to this effect. A copy of the concurrence form is included in the Appendix.
C. Archaeology
In their October 6, 2000, letter, the SHPO stated "We have conducted a review of the
project and are aware of no properties of architectural, historic, or archaeological
significance which would be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment
on the project as currently proposed." Given the limited scope of the project, no effects
on archaeological sites are anticipated.
IX. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact by replacing potentially
unsafe bridges.
The project is considered a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
environmental consequences.
29
The bridge replacements will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or
natural environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulations. No
significant change in land use is expected to result from replacement of the bridge.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not
expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The studied route does not contain any bicycle accommodations, nor is it a designated
bicycle route; therefore, no bicycle accommodations have been included as part of this
project.
All alternatives replace the existing bridges at their current location with identical
permanent right-of-way requirements. The required right-of-way for all alternatives
affects only wetlands, bottomland hardwood forest or distributed roadside land.
Alternatives 1-4 would require a temporary easement to contain the temporary on-site
detour. None of the alternatives involves any existing farmland and all alternatives have
the same "Farmland Conversion Impact Rating" score of 47. The Natural Resources
Conservation Service (USDA) determined that no prime farmlands would be affected by
any alternative, thereby, meeting the requirements of the Farmland Protection Policy
Act (7 CFR Part 658).
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl
refuges of National, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
The project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the
regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required. 40 CFR
Part 51 is not applicable because the proposed project is located in an attainment area.
The replacement of the existing bridges will not increase or decrease traffic volumes
because of the project. The noise levels will increase during the construction period,
but will only be temporary. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for
highway traffic noise of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772 and for
air quality (1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act)
and no additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Division of Waste Management revealed no leaking underground
storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse
environmental effects will result from implementation of the project.
30
X. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
Agency Coordination
Letters requesting comments and environmental input were sent to the following
agencies:
*US Army Corps of Engineers- Wilmington District
*US Fish and Wildlife Service
*US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service
State Clearinghouse
*NC Department of Cultural Resources
NC Department of Public Instruction
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NC Wildlife Commission
NC Division of Water Quality
NC Natural Heritage Program
*County Manager, Harnett County
County Manager, Sampson County
Chairman, Sampson County Commissioners
Superintendent, Sampson County Public Schools
Sampson County Regional Medical Center
Asterisks (*) indicates agencies from which written comments were received. The
comments are included in the appendix of this report.
Public Involvement
A Citizens Informational Workshop was held on April 5, 2001 for the project. A copy of
the handout from the workshop is included in the Appendix. Nineteen residents
attended the workshop. Overall, the project received favorable comments. The
majority of the residents supported the maintenance of traffic during construction
without an off-site detour. A newsletter was sent to all the property owners in the
vicinity of the project. A copy of the newsletter is included in the Appendix. No
comments were received as a result of the newsletter.
31
Prior to the workshop, representatives from NCDOT's PDEA Branch, Roadway Design
Unit, and Ko & Associates met with the Acting Town Manager of Dunn. The alternatives
were discussed. Maps and handout materials were provided to the Town so they could
be made available to any local residents unable to attend the workshop. This
information was advertised in the local newspaper.
A total of five written comments were received concerning the project. Four of the
written comments were in opposition to closing NC 55 and using an off-site detour. The
remaining comment was concerned with the cutting of trees in the project area.
32
REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Raleigh.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS -79/31. Fish
and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1998. Classifications and Water Quality Standards
Assigned to the Waters of the Cape Fear River Basin. North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1996. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality
Management Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Raleigh.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1985. Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia. 88 pp.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1993. Recovery Plan for Pondberry (Lindera
melissifolia). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, GA. 56 pp.
Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature
Conservancy, Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
LeGrand, H. E., S. P. Hall. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal
Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Raleigh.
Leonard, S. 1995. Monitoring, Management, and Restoration of Pondberry (Lindera
melissaefolia) in North Carolina. Final Report. 12 pp.
33
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, NC. 264 pp.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 412 pp.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 408 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishers of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Deleware. The University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, N.C. 222 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources. Raleigh. 325 pp.
Thompson, R.L. and W.W. Baker. 1971. A survey of red-cockaded woodpeckers
nesting habitat requirements (pp. 170-186). In R.L. Thompson ed., The Ecology
and Management of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker. Tall Timbers Research
Station, Tallahassee, FL.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1984. Soil Survey of Sampson County, North
Carolina. USDA National Cooperative Soil Survey.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1997. Natural Resources Conservation
Service. Technical Guide, Section II-A-2.
34
U. S. Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual. Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS. 100 pp.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the
Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp.
35
y113 IJ=S? IJ25
IJ22 IJ= ]IC 1712iJpJ ?IBIp 1610 IBJ9 ?/ 4
^ \?
Ih
DUNN
/ .an a.l lem ?y '?
p 4
' 42???•? •? ?O y??J
5 1906 ?l pI
I C. 82- IDG NOS. 29 & 53
os:f M?
©
,s'z
1915 1? • 93 f y? \G{ A - '? ?
J? .? IJBI i IJ99??BJ2 • ?S?G? •"• P\b ?'D \•'?\? \?il `
17.
1811 \? 1
HARNEh J?
? . nea
CUMBERIgNp • f 1em p- • ;y?
W Y
• ? CO. nes R -•
Q B4
nos 18J5 J 1504
r'
j
GOWN
182,
. a
NI? R??
T` O '\
JJ 1 i
$r.'+. M P 10 N ..4
NORTH CAROLINA DRPART2IRNT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DBVBLOPDIBNT AND
BNVIROMRNTAL ANALYSES BRANCH
BRIDGE NOS. 29 & 53
NC 55 OVER MINGO SWAMP
HARNETT/SAMPSON COUNTY
B-3654
VICINITY MAP
0 1 2 3
GRAPHIC SCALE (MILES) FIGURE I
PROPOSED DESIGN CRITERIA
REPLACE BRIDGE NOS. 29 & 53 ON NC 55
OVER MINGO SWAMP
HARNETT/SAMPSON COUNTY
B-3654
20'
17'
3' 15'
" GRADE
,H I POINT
+ 1.5' 2.5'1 f
? L -02 - I? .oz
ANCHORED PORTABLE
CONCRETE BARRIER
BRIDGE NO. 29 & 53 TYPICAL SECTION
STAGE NO.1
40'
BRIDGE NO. 29 & 53 TYPICAL SECTION
STAGE NO. 2
40'

8' 12' I
12' 8'
i
GRADE
POINT
.02 .02
BRIDGE NO. 29 & 53 TYPICAL SECTION
STAGE NO. 3
FIGURE II
STAGE CONSTRUCTION
ALTERNATES 6A & 6B
0
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
Bn
A rPoo

? I,os
IB12

r?

9&23
M/
x4^P / J

-?( REGIONAL & TRUCK TRA
•-a-+-? ?-`-+ LOCAL TRAFFIC
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTES
dbm NORTH CAROLINA DBPARTMSNT OF TRANSPORTATION
PAOJRCC DEVELOPMENT AND
AFIrl ENVIROMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
BRIDGE NOS. 29 & 53
NC 55 OVER MINGO SWAMP
HARNETT/SAMPSON COUNTY
B-3654
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTES
1 2 3
GRAPHIC SCALE (MILES) FIGURE 12
S A M I P
0
,Q.
to
:0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF. ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1990
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890 -
PJ f?RYfit}tYi IU February 14, 2001
Regulatory Division
i
Action ID No. 200100213, 200100214, 200100215, 200100216, 200100227, 200100229,
200100347,200100348,200100349,200100350,200100351,200100352,200100353.
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Reference your letters July 28, 2000, August 15, 2000, October 20, 2000, and
November 15, 2000 regarding our scoping comments on the following proposed bridge
replacement projects:
1. TIP Project B-3698, Bridge No. 15 on NC 50 over Youngs Swamp, Sampson
County, Action ID 200100347.
.2. TIP Project B-3699, Bridge No. 67 on NC 903 over Coharie Creek, Sampson
Courity,.Action ID 200100348. .
3. TIP Project B-3514, Bridge No. 100 on SR 1246 (Butler Island Bridge Road)
over South River, Sampson County, Action ID 200100349.
4. TIP Project B-3654, Bridge Nos. 29 and 53 on NC 55 over Mingo Swamp,
Harnett County, Action ID 200100213.
5. TIP Project B-3655, Bridge No. 59 on S R I 111 over Jumping Run Creek, .
Harnett County, Action ID 200100214.
6. TIP Project B-3692, Bridge Nos. 62 and 82 on NC 72.over Richland Swamp, ..
Robeson County, Action ID 200100229.
7. TIP Project B-3693, Bridge No. 211 on SR 1527 over Raft Swamp, Robeson
County, Action ID 200100350.
8. TIP Project B-3507, Bridge Nos. 155 and 157 on SR 1303 over Lumber River,.
Robeson County, Action ID200100351.,
9. TIP Project B-3881, Bridge No. 26 on US 117 and NC 133 over CSX
Transportation, New Hanover County, Action ID 200100227.
10. TIP Project B-3896, Bridge No. 24 on NC 20 over CSX Transportation,.
Robeson County, Action ID 200100352.
i0
O .
O
,O
1®
!O
(®
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O.
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
m
0

11. TIP Project B-4139, Bridge No. 106 on SR 1780 over Black River, Hamett
County, Action ID 200100215.
12. TIP Project B-3875, Bridge No. 78 on SR 1456 over Grassy Creek, Moore
County, Action ID 200100216.
TIP Project B-3404, Bridge No. 314 on SR 1127 over South Fork Jones Creek, "
Anson County, Action ID 200100353.
Based on the information provided in the referenced letters, it appears that each
proposed bridge replacement project may impact jurisdictional wetlands. Department of
the Army (DA) permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, of
1977, as amended, will be required for the discharge of excavated or fill material in waters
of the United States or any adjacent wetlands in conjunction with these projects, including
disposal of construction debris. Specific permit requirements will depend on design of the
projects, extent of fill work within the waters of the United States, including wetlands,
construction methods, and other factors.
Although these projects may qualify as a Categorical Exclusion, to qualify for
nationwide permit authorization under Nationwide Permit #23, the project planning
report should contain sufficient information to document that the proposed activity does
not have more than a minimal individual or cumulative impact on the aquatic .
environment. Our experience has shown that replacing bridges with culverts often results
insufficient adverse impacts to consider the work as having more than minimal impacts
on the aquatic environment. Accordingly, the following items need to be addressed in the
project planning report:.
a. The report should contain the amount of permanent and temporary impacts to
waters and wetlands as well as a description of the type of habitat that will be affected.
b. Off-site detours are always preferable to on-site (temporary) detours in wetlands.
If an on-site detour is the recommended action, justification should be provided. On-site
detours, unless constructed on a spanning structure, can cause permanent wetland impacts
due to sediment consolidation resulting from the on-site detour itself and associated
heavy equipment. Substantial sediment consolidation in wetland systems may in turn
cause. fragmentation of the wetland and impair the ecological and hydrologic functions of
the wetland. Thus, on-site detours constructed in wetlands can result in more than
minimal wetland impacts. These types of wetland impacts will be considered as
permanent wetland impacts. Please note that an onsite detour constructed on a spanning
structure can potentially avoid permanent wetland impacts and should be considered
whenever an on-site detour is the recommended action.
2

® For proposed projects and associated on-site detours that cause minimal losses of .
- wetlands, an approved wetland restoration plan will be required prior to issuance of a DA
nationwide or general permit. For proposed projects and associated on-site detours that
® cause significant wetland losses, an individual DA permit and a mitigation proposal for
the unavoidable wetland impacts maybe required.
®

® In view of our concerns related to onsite detours constructed in wetlands, recent
field inspections were conducted at each of the proposed project sites, except for TIP
® Project B-3875, and a cursory determination was made on the potential for sediment .
® consolidation due to an onsite detour. Based on these inspections, potential for sediment
consolidation in wetlands exists at several of th e proposed projects. Therefore, it is
® recommended that geotechnical evaluations be conducted at each project site.to estimate
the magnitude of sediment consolidation that can occur due to an on-site detour and the
results be provided in the project planning report. Based on our field inspections, we.
® strongly recommend that geotechnical evaluations be conducted at the following
® proposed project sites:
® 1. TIP Project B73698, Bridge No. 15 on NC 50 over Youngs Swamp, Sampson
® County, Action ID 200100347.
2. TIP Project B-3514, Bridge No. 100 on SR 1246 (Butler Island Bridge Road)
® over the South River, Sampson County, Action ID 200100349.
3. TIP Project B-3654, Bridge Nos. 29 and 53 on NC 55 over Mingo Swamp,
Harnett County, Action ID 200100213.
4. TIP Project B-3692, Bridge Nos. 62 and 82 on NC 72 over Richland Swamp,
Robeson County, Action ID 200100229.
® 5. TIP Project B-3693, Bridge No. 211 on SR 1527 over Raft Swamp, Robeson
® County, Action ID 200100350..
6. TIP Project B-3507, Bridge Nos. 155 and 157 on SR 1303 over Lumber River,
® Robeson County, Action ID 200100351. .

O c. Project commitments should include the removal of all temporary fills from
® waters and wetlands and "time-of-year" restrictions on in-stream work if recommended
by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission. In addition, if undercutting is necessary for
® temporary detours, the undercut material should be stockpiled to be used to restore the
site.
®
d. All restored areas should be planted with endemic vegetation including trees, if
o
appropriate.

e. Thereport should provide an estimate of the linear feet of new impacts to
streams resulting from construction of the project.

® 3

0
® i
0 f. If a bridge is proposed to be replaced with a culvert, NCDOT must demonstrate
® that the work will not result in more than minimal impacts on the aquatic environment,
specifically addressing the passage of aquatic life including anadromous fish. In addition,
0 the report should address the impacts that the culvert would have on recreational .
0 navigation.
0

0 g. The report should discuss and recommend bridge demolition methods and shall
include the impacts of bridge demolition and debris removal in addition to the impacts of
0 constructing the bridge. The report should also incorporate the bridge demolition policy
0 recommendations pursuant to the NCDOT policy entitled "Bridge Demolition and
?0
Removal in Waters of the United States" dated. September 20, 1999.
0 h. Based on the recent field investigations of the referenced project sites, the'
0 apparent level of wetland impacts and scope of the referenced.projects do not warrant
0 coordination pursuant to the integrated NEPA/Section 404-merger agreement.
0

0 Should you have any questions, please call Mr. David L. Timpy at the Wilmington
Field Office at 910-251-4634.
Sincerely,
0,5? ?\, -v/
E. David Franklin
NCDOT Team Leader
Regulatory Division
4
O
O
O
O
:O
:O
10
1O
O
O
O
O
O
'O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
'O
i0
'O
O
O
O
O
O
PSMENT OF T„F
?Q' w
9
M'RcH 3 .e
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Feld Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North CaroBTU 276363726
September 28, 2000
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Thank you for your August 15, 2000 request for information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) on the potential environmental impacts of proposed bridge replacements in
Harnett County, North Carolina. This report provides scoping information and is provided in
accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (16 U.S.C. 661-
667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-
.1543). This report also serves as initial scoping comments to federal and state resource agencies
for use in their permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace the following
bridge structures:
1. B-3654 Bridge Nos. 29 & 53 on NC 55 over Mingo Swamp, and
2. B-3655 Bridge No. 59 on SR 1111 over Jumping Run Creek.
The following recommendations are provided to assist you in your planning process and to
facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we recommend that proposed
highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors, or
previously developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. Areas
exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed and region should be
avoided. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings
and/or occur on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures
I' . .. , I.
O
O
O
O
!O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0.
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
,O
'O
'O
O
O
O
O
O
O
1O
0
that maintain natural water flows and hydraulic regimes without scouring, or impeding fish and
wildlife passage, should be employed. Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced
through wetland areas.. Roadway embankments and fill areas should be stabilized by using
appropriate erosion control devices and techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in
sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps of the Anderson Creek and Dunn 7.5 Minute
Quadrangles show wetland resources in the specific work areas. However, while the NWI maps
are useful for providing an overview of a given area, they should not be relied upon in lieu of a
detailed wetland delineation by trained personnel using an acceptable wetland classification
methodology. Therefore, in addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the
environmental documentation for this project include the following in sufficient detail to
facilitate a thorough review of the action.
1. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted by
filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory. Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987 Corps of
En6Teers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps).
2. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made to
identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts. Opportunities to
protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation easement, should be
explored at the outset.
The document presents a number of scenarios for replacing each bridge, ranging from in-place. to
relocation, with on-site and off site detours. The Service recommends that each bridge be
replaced on the existing alignment with an off site detour.
The enclosed list identifies the federally-listed endangered and threatened species, and Federal
Species of Concern (FSC) that are known to occur in Harnett County. The Service recommends
that habitat requirements for the listed species be compared with the available habitats at the
respective project sites. If suitable habitat is present within the action area of the project,
biological surveys for the listed species should be performed. Environmental documentation that
includes survey methodologies, results, and NCDOT's recommendations based on those results,
should be provided to this office for review and comment.
FSC's are those plant and animal species for which the Service remains concerned, but fluther
biological research and field study are needed to resolve the conservation status of these taxa.
Although FSC's receive no statutory protection under the ESA, we would encourage the NCDOT
to be alert to their potential presence, and to make every reasonable effort to conserve them if
found. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for information on
species under state protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Tom
McCartney at 919-856-4520, ext. 32.
Sincerely'677.
o Dr. Garland ardue
Ecological Services Supervisor
Enclosures
cc:
COE, Wilmington, NC (David Timpy)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessy)
NCDNR, Northside, NC (David Cox)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:09/28/00:919/856-4520 extension 32:\2brdghar.net
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
HARNETT COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis FSC
Cape Fear shiner Notropis mekistocholas Endangered
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Northern pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus FSC'
Invertebrates
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni FSC
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa FSC
Vascular Plants
Georgia indigo-bush Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana FSC
Sandhills milkvetch Astragalus michauxii FSC
Resinous boneset Eupatorium resinosum FSC
Small-whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides Threatened'
Sandhills bog lily Lilium iridolae FSC
Rough-leaved loosestrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia Endangered
Savanna cowbane Oxypolis ternata FSC
Carolina grass-of-parnassus Parnassia caroliniana FSC
Wavyleaf wild quinine Parthenium radfordii FSC
Sandhills pyxie-moss Pyxidanthera barbulata var. brevifolia FSC
Sun-facing coneflower _
Rudbeckfa heliopsidis FSC
Spring-flowering goldenrod Solidago verna FSC
Pickering's dawnflower Stylisma pickeringii var. pickeringii FSC
Carolina aspholdel Tofieldia glabra FSC
Roughleaf yellow-eyed grass Xyris scabrifolia FSC
HAYWOOD COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A)'-
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus borealis FSC
Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis FSC
Cerulean warbler bendroica cerulea FSC
Eastern cougar Felis concolor couguar Endangered
Carolina northern flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Endangered
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
Southern rock vole Microtus chrotorrhinus carolinensis FSC
Southern Appalachian woodrat Neotoma floridana haematoreia FSC
Alleghany woodrat Neotoma magister FSC
Southern water shrew Sorex palustris punctulatus FSC
Appalachian cottontail Sylvilagus obscurus FSC
Appalachian Bewick's wren Thryomanes bewickii altus FSC
January 15, 1999 Page 2 1 of 49
United States Natural Resources 600 Westlnnes Street
Department of Conservation Salisbury, NC 28144
USDA Agriculture Service Telephone: [phone]
?- Fax: [phone]
November 1, 2001
Mr. L. Jack Ward, PE
KO & Associates, P.C.
1011 Schaub Dr., Suite 202
Raleigh, N.C. 27606
Re: AD-1006 Farmland Conversion Impact
Bridge Replacements
Harnett, Person, Sampson, and Warren Counties
Dear Mr. Ward:
Attached are the completed AD-1006 Farmland Conversion Impact Rating forms for the above Bridge
Projects that you requested in your letter of October 26, 2000.
I was unable to complete the AD-1006 for Warren County as no soil survey exists. It is underway at this
time. I suspect that the relative value will be the same as it was for the other counties.
The only item that you need to be aware of is that some of the areas do involve wetlands.
I am returning most of the original material to you. If you have any questions you can call me at 704-637-
2400.?orrr??email me at [e-mail].
William E. Woody
Resource Soil Scientist
Cc: Mike Sugg w/o attachments
Milton Corles w/ attachments
Parks Blake w/ attachments
Dallas Shackleford w/ attachments
Wilson Spencer w/ attachments
0
0
O •? •U.5- GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1984"[phone]
O '.
o U.S. Department of Agriculture
O FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
O PART I (Tube completed by Federal Agency) Date Of Land Evaluation Request
IO In -25-o0
Name Of Project / ? rl Federal Agency Involved
'o Proposed Land Use ((l G'I' y
O 1 I I Admin•
e 1yl 1 County And State
iv e Sa
PART 11 (To.be completed b SCS) Date Request Received By SCS
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local linportant farmlandT 'ales -'-loo AY^s', t Average Farm Slze L y.
O (l/no,the.FPPAdoes not apply do not complete additionalpaYtt.'ofYhnform).,,; .s•,rtYr ?,._s .?
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
1®
G
Major Crop s?-+t •:- s :-
E`t?`G1 Farmable Land 11Lf'iovi .Wmdlction ?zr,.' ,7ta,?

Acres' ?
°3s
+ AmoUn? Of FamdarW
As pehnedm FJ,
tc
°
[
?r S
AU" I?ctes:K
?a? 5rrs"r

' ;; [Ja Of Lapel E t1pn System UsAed _ t _-
'k '
?
-
?
'1
Name Of' Local SFtc',4ltsessmeaT Sy
temX ?. •pr j„?t
s
1
" ?
Hate La l
u
a
ttiioonn Retumed•-8 SCS {+
#
_,f
:.
1•"' ±Y.
/ ???_. ; :: ?
e. -?.?
!-
. a
3i _
V
??` ?F&,•ysi.- -?.4
?
-
? _
y
r
?,3'?iw?3•.
?i•? T?
.
. .
,. t ?,??+Ct
PART 11
1 (To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative Site Ratin
.
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly - Site el Site t Site fC Site D
t 1 i Z 1.23 , 2
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C Total Acres In Site _ 1 q r12 3 2aj r Z
PART F y I76be comp/eted by 5CS1
"LandEvaluaUon Information
"
.:.A ;Total-Acres Prime:-And Unique Farmland:.. ,..- -.: •- a '+x- ?'°!r, ?'?x
" :` ?' .?v," ?? , ,; ( ay - _F .cry r
"..8. "Total
A"cres.StatevvideAnd Local ImportakiFanmland
Percentage:Of Farmland Iri County 0r Local ?Govf_ Unit To Bea3mverted
D. Percentage (K Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher-Relative Velue :5'"' ?4Q"=' _?.a ..;•! (?
-PART V (To be completed by SCS) Land .Evaluatlon Criterion y,-y.+
=lielativeValueOfFarmlandT
B
c
nve
ed(
/
t
/
.
o
e
o
t
Sca
eo
Oto
OOPolnts)
PART V I (To be completed by Federal Agency)

Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 cFR 658.5(b) Maximum
Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use rl
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use (Q 5
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed 20 O O P O "
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government ZO O O O o
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area ?5 5
6. Distance To Urban Support -Services 15 cJ eJ
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average I L7 10 10 1 O 10
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland IQ O O O O
9. Availability of Farm Support Services rj 5
10. On-Farm Investments 20 10 10 10 10
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services I a o 0 0 C,
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use 10 O 0 0 0
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 47 47 4 -7 4-7
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100 Q Q Q Q
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or a local
site assessme
t)
160
, A
n
. 7 4
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2lines) 260 I
A 4-7 i l -7
aI Was
Local Site Assessment Used?
Witte Selected: Date Of Selection °
Yes ? No 0
Reason For Selection:
O
O
O
'O
0
0
0
0
;0
'O
i0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
I
0
)
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
October 6, 2000
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development-and Environmental Analysis Branch
j r
C
From: David Brook ' .-1
Deputy State I?stonc Preservation O firer
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Re: Replacement of Bridge No. 29 and Bridge No. 53 on NC 55 over Mingo Swamp, Tip
No. B-3654, ER 01-7359
Thank you for your letter of August 15, 2000, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the following structures of
historical or architectural importance within the general area of the project.
Bridge No. 29 was built in 1936
Bridge No. 53 was built in 1936
We recommend that an architectural historian with your staff evaluate these structures to
determine their eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and report the
findings to us. We recommend no further survey of architectural resources in conjunction with
this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section
106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:kgc
cc: Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT

Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] 733-8653
ARCHAEOLOGY 421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4619 [phone] 715-2671
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613 [phone] 715-4801
0
•
•
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
e
I°
s
0
0
0
0
0
a
•
•
0
0
0
0
0
'o
0
0
0
0

Federal Aid 4BRSTP-55(14) TIP #13-3654 Counry: Hamett/Sampson
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL
REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Replace Bridge Nos. 29 and 53 on NC 55 over Mingo Swamp
On June 1, 2000, representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FH WA)
n /North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Reviewed the subject project at
O^/ a scoping meeting
LJ' photograph review session/consultation
F] other
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
W? there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available, and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as QridcteS 2q 3 53 Rt M are considered not eligible for the National
egister and no further evaluat of them is necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties located within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
Representative
{n. MCDOO?T I / Date
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
Ren sr? en[ative. S14PO Date
State Historic Preservation Officer
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
a
O
O
O
10
?O
,O
10
O
O
O'
O;
®t:
t'r
O:
O .i4
O.
O
O
O.
O
O
O
O
O
O
•
•
•
i
•

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION

MEMORANDUM
r ?, A
121, 2000

TO: Melba McGee TX v'
c l
•
FROM: David Harrison`! '
'' `

SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacement Projects B-3500 (Person County); 13-
3654 and B-3655 (Harnett County); and B-3706 and B-3707 (Warren County).
If additional land is needed beyond the existing right-of=waythe
environmental assessment should include information on adverse impacts to
Prime or Statewide Important Farmland,
The definition of Prime or Statewide Important Farmland is based on the
soil series and not on its current land use. Areas that are developed or are within
municipal boundaries are exempt from consideration as Prime or Important
Farmland.
For additional information, contact the soils specialists with the Natural
Resources Conservation Service, USDA, Raleigh, NC at [phone].
Cc: William D. Gilmore
P
1614 Men
JAMES B. HUNT JR
OYERNOR
u
O
O
'O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Dr B. ANw s, JR., Chairman
BFw B. Hat.. Vwe-Chairman
JosF T. BowDc N
TmoY BYRn
W,ur Trram
-355
r?
NnAIM CAPD`?NN
COUNTY OF HARNETT
P.O. BOX 759. LIL INGTON, N.C. 27546
[phone] • FAX [phone]
October 19, 2000
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
COUNTY MANAGER
Nm EwoRY
Wm. A. (To") WnDrx, Assistant
CLERK TO THE BOARD
KAY S. BLANcuARn
?LG E I V o- ')
OCT 23 2?- l
<:.
C r_v-`
The purpose of this letter is to respond to request for comment regarding three
bridges in Hamett.County. In your letter dated August 15, you note several options
regarding Bridge Nos. 29, 53, and 59. We have reviewed each of these and would
request that each bridge be replaced. In addition, we have reviewed the impact of
replacement projects on our emergency services and have determined that the provision
of services would not be interrupted by these projects. Thank you for the opportunity to
provide input regarding these projects.
Sincerely
Nei Emory
County Manager
NE:sw
F:\USERS\S HI RLEY\DO'nGi Imore.dm
liamett County does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age or
u
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
?O
OF NORTh ,
?O y
7 REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NOS. 29 & 53
m ON NC 55 OVER MINGO SWAMP IN HARNETT/SAMPSON COUNTY
TIP NO. B-3654
??OFTRP?
September 2000 NEWSLETTER Number 1
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge Nos. 29 & 53
on NC 55 over Mingo Swamp in Harnett/Sampson
County (see attached map). The bridge
replacements are necessary to maintain the safety of
those traveling this route as the existing structures
are nearing the end of their useful life.
For approximately the next six months, the NCDOT
will be conducting engineering and environmental
studies to determine the most economical and
environmentally sound alternative for replacing the
existing bridges. Two alternates are under
consideration. These include (1) replacing the
bridges at their existing location while utilizing a
temporary on-site detour and (2) replacing the
bridges at their existing location while closing the
roadway utilizing an off-site detour (i.e., detouring
traffic on other roadways) during construction of the
new structures. If an off-site detour is utilized as the
preferred alternate, the roadway will be closed to
traffic for approximately one year.
The current schedule in the NCDOT's Draft 2002-
2008 Transportation Improvement Program is for
right of way acquisition to begin in fiscal year 2002
and for construction to begin in fiscal year 2003.
Please note that this schedule is subject to change.
The NCDOT does not plan to conduct a Citizens
Informational Workshop for this project. Please
consider how the proposed alternates may affect you
and use this opportunity to express any comments
and concerns you might have relative to the general
alternates expressed above.
The NCDOT has engaged the private engineering
firm of Ko and Associates, P. C., to conduct the
study. The results of the study will be used by
NCDOT to select a preferred alternate to replace
Bridge Nos. 29 & 53 that minimizes impacts to both
man-made and natural resources, while meeting the
public's transportation needs at a reasonable cost.

If you have questions concerning other
transportation projects, please call our Customer
Service Office toll free at 1-877-DOT-4YOU or check
our websde for more information at
www. dot. state. nc. us
PLEASE ADDRESS COMMENTS OR CONCERNS
TO EITHER OF THE FOLLOWING:
Mr. L. Jack Ward, P. E.
Project Manager
Ko & Associates, P. C.
1011 Schaub Drive, Suite 202
Raleigh, NC 27606
Telephone [phone] extension 107
E-mail [e-mail]
Mr. Drew Joyner, P. E.
Project Engineer
NCDOT-PDEA
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone [phone] extension 269
E-mail [e-mail]
PROFILE OF BRIDGE NO. 29
PROFILE OF BRIDGE NO. 53

?d - Ire ,m
za
_ ? ,zaz l? a
,e,o
? `?
e
® ??? W
DUN
w. rm

,a
J
mve ?• f ??

W
k, ,ma `

i
'
° BRIDGE N S
2
O? • .
9 & 5

-
? o

Mr. Jack Ward, P.E.
Project Manager
Ko & Associates, P.C.
1011 Schaub Drive, Suite 202
Raleigh, NC 27606
<<Owner_N
<(Owner_2»
<(Owner_3»
<<Address>>
<<City>>
Replacement of Bridge Nos. 29 & 53
® On NC 55 Over Mingo Swamp
® Harnett/Sampson County
® TIP Project B-3654
4D April 5, 2001
® The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) has begun studying the proposed replacement of Bridge Nos. 29 and 53 on
® NC 55 over Mingo Swamp in Harnett and Sampson Counties (see attached map). The project is
included in the Draft 2002-2008 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program and is scheduled for
right-of-way acquisition to begin in fiscal year 2002 and for construction to begin in fiscal year 2003.
4) The existing two-lane bridges were constructed in 1936 and are each 61 feet long with a clear roadway
width of 22 feet (two 10-foot lanes with 1-foot shoulders). The bridge replacements are necessary to
maintain the safety of those traveling this route as the existing structures are nearing the end of their
4) useful life. The existing bridges are structurally deficient and not candidates for rehabilitation.
4)
Five alternatives are being studied for replacing Bridge Nos. 29 and 53. Each alternative replaces the
existing bridge with a new bridge with a clear roadway width of 40 feet (two 12-foot lanes with 8-foot
® shoulders). The approaches to the new bridges will have a pavement width of 24 feet (two 12-lanes)
® with 8-foot shoulders (4 feet paved and 4 feet grassed). These alternatives are described as follows:
® Alternate 1 replaces Bridge No. 53 in its existing location with a new two-lane bridge. Traffic service
® will be maintained on-site with a temporary detour on the north side of the existing bridge.
® Alternate 2 replaces Bridge No. 53 in its existing location with a new two-lane bridge. Traffic service
o will be maintained on-site with a temporary detour on the south side of the existing bridge.
Alternate 3 replaces Bridge No. 29 in its existing location with a new two-lane bridge. Traffic service
® will be maintained on-site with a temporary detour on the north side of the existing bridge.
Alternate 4 replaces Bridge No. 29 in its existing location with a new two-lane bridge. Traffic service
® will be maintained on-site with a temporary detour on the south side of the existing bridge.
® Alternate 5 replaces Bridge Nos. 29 and 53 in their existing locations with new two-lane bridges while
® closing the roadway utilizing an off-site detour (i.e., detouring traffic on other roadways).
An additional alternative is under investigation that will use stage construction techniques for replacing
the bridges. The existing bridges will be cut in half, reducing them to one lane. Traffic signals will be
® placed at opposite ends of the bridges. Traffic will be stopped in one direction, while the traffic in the
opposite direction crosses the bridges. Half of each new bridge will be constructed while the traffic is
handled on the existing one-lane bridges. Then, traffic will be shifted to the new bridges, the remainder
of the existing bridges will be removed, and the remaining sections of the new bridges will be
41 constructed. This alternative will avoid the cost and environmental impacts of temporary on-site
® detours.
4D
4
OD
6
D
O)
C
.3
0
O
Q)
L_
C
C
O
L
N
N
N
vi
a)
U
Q
C
7
U
C
O
a
(1)
N
m
L
to
m
C
m
m
m
0
U
0
U
6
m
E
N
a)
a)
L

M ( ?
a0 O O O

( O
C) O
O p N
Z M
t-- O
O O
CO O
O (
O
,
. O
O C)
CD O
O
0
is
C N O C O 00 N' W a
V O
(A LO Cr) (O

Q) Q) L I
(A O
N N
r (O
tl t--
LO LO
EA N
(0
Q m V) C-4 EA (n CO,
m ()
l
U
) O V) (MO C) (D
OD C)
C)
O
O C3
O
t` O r? O Lo (O
Z
C m O O N rn rn to
co O
613 O t` N
a) M (A C r
'>
Q t0> (F? (» (» (A
? K}
W L
N? 7 (D O O O O O O p
0 p N 0 co O LO O O C) O O
a Z C (n (D r` O h O u7 O C, O C)
E a) O C) C\l M 1x Lx
O
(0
0)L O 1 O O)
O O O

° (» co

Uf l r

(»

(» r

(» I

COD,
Q
?
In
? EA V3
rn
M N , t: (D p Cl CD V' 0 0
C) 0
a) N O M p 0 0 0
co Z c Z a) O ? p u C O ° ,0
E a) O-? O N rn m (,-j (O p r
a) 0) L O EA co O (0 C) co
G
ER fA
co O
Y
LO t-
N O
co
O
O
O

(
O

C)

,

D
a) 0 N 0 co O O O (
O O C) p
M Z c (n a) r- O M O I. O O (0 LQ
a
O 1
O (n
a) O
o

EA O

N N (O

I r C)

?
n
W
(O
•' -O
C
a)
Q

ER

fA

61). fR

EA N

r M• M
I
ry
?
W (A (A
Cl)
O L
r (O w
N
O
a) C)
M
M O

O O

O O

O
?.
O
O
C)
O
O
p
O
m Z C Z a) r O co O O CD LO U
c O' °
23 p Co CV m ? -
o r
a) to L O U) ?-

V> O

C14 N U)
1
r- N

co O
OD co
Q '
61).
64
61),
w

r

r
m > ? V> EA

3 a)
O U
C
C
m rn

rn c m
LLJ
a)

ay L
U
2 O
U O
C
> m
0 _0 _0 0 O
E 0-
C:
m
m _
a)

C)
I

a)
CL
Q C Q m
O C Z
m c
,
m
3 N a) 0 0

U
U
-
_ a
m m m 9 m E m F

Cn (n 0Y W H U) Q
a) T
-m
rn 'p
t O
O N
a)
0.>
? m
y C
C N
O
N O.
L ?
c) O
?U
O Z
cL
c
O
(D
a) >
-O M
N T
c 0
0 c
U m
N C
-O a)
C L
7 fn
N
- E ..
E
0.3
a O
m a) O
O L v-
C ? N
`a m O
N .L. J.
m
> O
m C
L a) a)
N
7 m X
O a) N
> d C
C
C L
a) O C
EUL
C)
E
3
U N
C n
c OU C
m
°' E
m 'c E
m 7 0
V -0 U
N _)
Q O
Q M T
m
-0 0 c
00 U N
3 C T
m
F-C E
O 7
p C O
Z E o
fn
7
U
C
()
m
N
O
a)
C
T
O
'D
E
W
V
Q)
r
Q7
N Cl)
C
LL
C v
a) X
Q CO LL
_O
> ? N
O X
N
0 C: C: m N
a a) • co
U o
LJ a) a r
Cl)
0 W'Z?r
a)CL Orn
^
ca tn
Z
T
0 F-
O tT a)
3oco a) c
(D 'It 1 to m t
0 Z ? or- 0.
Replacement of Bridge Nos. 29 & 53
On NC 55 Over Mingo Swamp
Harnett/Sampson County
TIP Project B-3654
April 5, 2001
(please print)
Address:
(please print)
Phone: (optional)
Comments, concerns, and/or questions regarding this project:
(If you need additional space, please continue on the back)

IIIS(o 4
ro
Ervin
N?poN
?UMBERt,?
J.
G i_c5

ire. vm _ rm ? ? imo _ ,?ao iero
? ? ?'1?B9 7
? ? :=5 'II L
176 ?.
I AY . d
20' `B ID(
=` 1
N
Gown"
ror. n R/?
82,
L
a 9 V/AE i • lu^ R
lvl\?,\' I
NOS. 29 & 3\
N •01 r.?
s
Vim: •\
1 \

(u ,?zJ

- ^i
. `
??
•° NORTH CAROLLNA? DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND,
.
,. ENV13LOMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH'

BRIDGE NOS. 29 & 53
NC 55 OVER MINGO SWAMP
'HARNETT/SAMPSON COUNTY
B-3654
VICINITY MAP
-
0 I 2 3
GRAPHIC SCALE (MILES) FIGURE I
W
M
1
?ice.:
-

O
T?b?s F
z g 0.5lz? W

O fw
u
q VI z
? 2 O
a' a [ EE4
Cr] f ?
? ^I Q 7 U
y
aE~
o
z z
z
_
?
U
U
O

t~i ?
a
`• _

F
aa11
z
z N O
Z ?
[
6
yc p ? (? p O o

?? a
8&
q e
?zq

rJ^`?

a 3
3 LL. z
w
O O
? w
'?E
2 ?n
w

O ?

F N
O
O

N 0_

o CL
C
w
X
w a H V)
I -M
W ?

W
I ?,

?: t « r>n
J _
F
w6
i
O
0.
R,
3a
o
m o
o ?z

M

W OEr

U x
z
0
w
ti
ti
w
gO
col
U
44
N : p?pt
7 O Z ?4 6.
0 z Q 4 O
e; 6
?08 Ljtizg
g aQ$??
a

`I
i` i ' •r
;I
I
I I I
F.Ik:' ?•F ..

a 3
3
U'
z
z
u O W
2 V)
w

W d
¢
CL CL
O
F-
N Q
QQQQ
w
X
W a
c F- N
I ?
W

W
I j{
H
U)?
O
w
H
Q
H
W

cL
C
O
O
O
L
0
s
a?
Ln
W
U
c
L
U
C
O
O
N
m
V)
a)
ca
C
m`
c?
N
s
0
Y
V)
O
U
O
Ln
N

m M - C O D O O O N O O O O
LO tll 0 r O O r O O O
O O r O N O O O
40) O m U N ? d C M C O 0 LO) W M
m Z {n O
L N - L O - N r O
?
L Q) to N M N C)
-
-

Q m U
O c c o O O O N O O O O
C N 0 r O O O N 4/r O O O
o, O O e- - 0 00 O LO 0
4- ? N CO d 7 CO CO O CD Ln
Cl) L T- M r 0 0 M Ln (D
` N - M N N O Q0
O 4-
C
yr
?
r
c/
r
ih
V
}
?'
+
+ a U yr yr
Q

c0 O O O I?t O O -! O
M
m LO) r , 0 00 1 0 d' O O O
L C
Q) O I 00 N (7 ) d Lf) O LO
z v"-- O r ' O N LD r r Ln N
a-- C t/ r N .- yr Lo CO
C
L, m a) E -U> <a • />
N Cl O
a?
a `
m m
m o
O
o
t
0
0
o
O

Q
N l
0 Lo
o
t"
O
o
0
0 oo l 0 LO LO
?
O N CD rn 7 M Ln r l N
o rn rn N tt r
m z +o E <n M , - j)- r. yr r

O

Q N
m m
rn O (J O 0 O d O O O O
d N + - M O LO) O r- O O o
1 O

CO of r O r O LO 0 , O O O
O
z C U) (ll
T O N ? M O LO O In
c 0 L .
v r- o CY) G) O N O N
N O U) J). M r tp• r LOS
a; t7) o c/) t/)

Q ? ? •c/r
m Q

CY) O O o O O O O 0 o
M N +J
L M O Lo O O o O O
0 ' cn p n O r O LO O O Ln Lo
O
Z c Z O o N O m M LO O r rl
c O L .a -
O
(M
a)
r
0
(D
(01
L O 7 U) to co - </} CD ?t d"
a) O) ? O t/> Wi> ?n <1> -

Q . L O {/} yr
m j
?,? 0 0 0 0 0 0 o
N LOS , + M o O O cD O o l O O
7 r O Col O t O O LO LO

4a
O

C O

Cl)

O
O
00
N
O
d'
O
Ln
N
r
co
c z
O -a 0 N LO r o r 6) (D

L
L r
,-
-
yr
r
N
yr
M

Q N'
M G Q
M a) 0 0 O O It O o OI O
LO , L M o 0 o cD 0 o Oi 0
N o r O 00 O It O o Lt7 LO
m O
Z C Z N
- O 00 N C? d LO) 0 r r
C Q L 0 r- O N LO r N O 00 00
L O :3 U) trr N yr CD N If>• N

Q
L j N tlY c/}
m ?

c
O
c?
N
O
r-
L
O
U
CLQ
C
0
U
C
O?
O
a?
C
U
N
.C
0
a?
C
U
c
C
O
tII
i
0
LOS
d'
0
Oll
O
c
ca
C
cn
a)
C T
O U
+? C
U N
C ?
C C
C ?
0 0
U
O ?
U) C
OCS ?
CT)
C
t?
I--

LOOKING WEST ACROSS BRIDGE
LOOKING EAST ACROSS BRIDGE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
.` TRANSPORTATION
.r PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 53
ON N.C. 55 OVER MINGO SWAMP
HARNETT COUNTY
B-3654
FIGURE 2A
STRUCTURE PROFILE -UPSTREAM, NORTH SIDE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 53
ON N.C. 55 OVER MINGO SWAMP
HARNETT COUNTY
B-3654
FIGURE 2B
LOOKING EAST ACROSS BRIDGE STRUCTURE PROFILE
? I .I t .MV+T.3''pyfj?
-;

LOOKING WEST ACROSS BRIDGE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
r PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 29
ON N.C. 55 OVER MINGO SWAMP
HARNETT COUNTY
B-3654
FIGURE 2C
C.1•`;4C =i y:??y"! !? 1 ~ A' ,. .,tom
..4t
}} r iii
AT,
DOWNSTREAM ST.Rl ? 'J?dl- 7 l!!
WEST END
,?? ?? r- • \ ai``?'StO?
.r a
`r Y
WEST END
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
} PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 29
ON N.C. 55 OVER MINGO SW."R
HARNETT COUNTY
B-3654
FIGURE 2D
J
0

R?
. - m
U

Z
0 p4

kr)
A ?
W ai ?-
0
W

?ry
.Tt
l ill
v

0
0
0