19930632 Ver 1_Complete File_19930818

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
August 10, 1993
Action ID No. 199303521 and Nationwide Permit No. 26 (Headwaters and Isolated
Waters)
Mr. B.J. O'Quinn, P.E.
Assistant Branch Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
State of North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. O'Quinn:
D
Reference your application of July 26, 1993, for Department of the Army
(DA) authorization to replace Bridge No. 75 over the Lower Little River on SR
2031 in Cumberland and Harnett Counties, North Carolina ( State Project No
82450801, Federal Aid No BRZ-2031{1), T.I.P. No. B-2836).
For the purposes of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program,
Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 330.6, published in the
Federal Register on November 22, 1991, lists nationwide permits (NWP).
Authorization was provided, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act,
for discharges of dredged or fill material into headwaters and isolated
waters.
Your work is authorized by this NWP provided it is accomplished in strict
accordance with the enclosed conditions and provided you receive a section 401
water quality certification from the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management (NCDEM). You should contact Mr. John Dorney, telephone (919)
733-1786, regarding this water quality certification. This NWP does not
relieve you of the responsibility to obtain other required State or local
approval.
This verification will be valid for 2 years from the date of this letter
unless the nationwide authorization is modified, reissued or revoked. Also,
this verification will remain valid for the 2 years if, during that period,
the NWP authorization is reissued without modification or the activity
complies with any subsequent modification of the NWP authorization. If during
the 2 years, the NWP authorization expires or is suspended or revoked, or is
modified, such that the activity would no longer comply with the terms and
conditions of the NWP, activities which have commenced (i.e., are under
construction) or are under contract to commence in reliance upon the NWP will
remain authorized provided the activity is completed within twelve months of
the date of the NWP's expiration, modification or revocation, unless
.
-2-
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Scott McLendon Wilmington
Area Field Office, Regulatory Branch, telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
Copy Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of -
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DAT?n,? C
?
T l
REF. NO. OR ROOM. BLDG.

RPM; U REF. NO. OR ROOM. BLDG.

ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
-4$"
SLA
v?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. IR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
July 21, 1993
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:

SAM HUNT
SECRETARY
261993
ETu NIDS GKUP
FR OUt.! ITY SECTS , J _ ,
Subject: Cumberland/Harnett Counties, Bridge No. 75 over
Lower Little River, SR 2031, State Project No.
82450801, Federal Aid No. BRZ-2031(1); T.I.P. No.
B-2836.
Attached for your information is a copy of the project
planning report for the subject project. The project is
being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
Therefore, we do not anticipate request-r -,an individual
permit but propose to proceed under ??N tiolwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix Qhese i -23) issued November
22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers. 'f'he pr visions of
Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of ergulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2734
(Categorical Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are
providing one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management, for their review.
If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call Gordon Cashin at 733-9770.
Sincerely,
B. J. O 'Quinn
Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch

BJO/gec
Attachment
cc: Mr. Scott McClendon, COE, Wilmington
Mr. Rudolf Schiener, COE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, P.E., DEHNR, DEM
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., State Highway Engineer-Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. John L. Smith Jr., P.E., Structure Design
Mr. F. W. Rosser, P.E., Division 6 Engineer
Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and Environmental Branch
Cumberland and Harnett Counties
SR 2031
Bridge No. 75 over Lower Little River
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-2031(1)
State Project No. 8.2450801
T.I.P. No. B-2836
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
S !B 9 3 V=4?1
DA E L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
X*DE Nichola . Graf, P.E.
FAQ Division Administrator, FHWA
Cumberland and Harnett Counties
SR 2031
Bridge No. 75 over Lower Little River
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-2031(1)
State Project No. 8.2450801
T.I.P. No. B-2836
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
March, 1993
Documentation Prepared By DSA GROUP of N.C., Inc.
Keith D. Lewis, P.E.
Project Manager - Transportation
.3( x/9
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
A. Bissett, Jr. P.E., Unit H ad
Consultant Engineering Unit
Cumberland and Harnett Counties
SR 2031
Bridge No. 75 over Lower Little River
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-2031(1)
State Project No. 8.2450801
T.I.P. No. B-2836
Bridge No. 75 is included in the current Transportation Improvement 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 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures, including Best Management Practices will be
implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts. No special or unique environmental
commitments are necessary.
The State Historic Preservation Officer has recommended that a comprehensive
archaeological survey be completed. This survey will be completed prior to construction.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 75 will be replaced in its existing location as shown in Figure 2. It should be
replaced with a new bridge having a clear roadway width of 30 feet and length of 170 feet.
The structure will provide a 24 foot travelway and three foot shoulders on each side.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing grade
at this location.
The existing roadway will be widened to a 24 foot pavement throughout the project limits.
Traffic will be detoured along existing roads during construction as shown in Figure 1.
The estimated cost, based on current prices, is $529,500. The estimated cost of the project,
as shown in the 1993-1999 Transportation Improvement Program, is $380,000.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 2031/SR 1609 is classified as a rural local route in the Statewide Functional Classification
System. The paved secondary road serves a rural area north of Fayetteville in Cumberland
(SR 1609) and Harnett (SR 2031) Counties (see Figure 1). The land use is mostly wooded
with some residences on the north approach to the bridge.
Near the bridge, SR 2031/SR 1609 has an 18 foot pavement width with four foot shoulders
(see Figure 2). The roadway approach to the south is flat, and to the north it slopes toward
the bridge. The horizontal alignment is tangent at the bridge with a 5°00' curve approximately
200 feet from the bridge to the south and an 8000' curve with spirals approximately 250 feet to
the north. The roadway is situated about 32 feet above the creek bed. There are no existing
utilities attached to the bridge structure. Overhanging utilities cross the bridge diagonally
approximately 20 feet above the deck. A waterline crosses under the river just upstream of
the bridge, and a meter vault is located at the southern end of the bridge approximately 18
feet west of the existing edge of pavement.
The projected traffic volume is 1200 Vehicles Per Day (VPD) for 1994 and 2300 VPD for the
design year 2014. The volumes include 2% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 3% dual-tired
vehicles (DT). The speed limit is posted with caution signs before each curve with 45 MPH.
The design speed is 45 MPH because of the existing curves; therefore, a design exception
will be required.
The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was built in 1958. The superstructure consists of a timber
floor on steel girder/stringer/steel floor beam system, and the substructure consists of timber
bents and piles.
The overall length of the bridge is 121 feet. Clear roadway width is 19.2 feet. The posted
weight limit is 13 tons for single vehicles and 16 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST).
Bridge No. 75 has a sufficiency rating of 5.0, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
Four accidents were reported on Bridge No. 75 during the period from August 1, 1989 to
August 31, 1992. Three of these accidents were single vehicles which ran off the road. In
addition, three of them involved alcohol and two resulted in fatalities after the vehicles went
down the embankment and into the river.
No school buses cross Bridge No. 75.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Three alternatives were studied for replacing Bridge No. 75. Each alternate consists of a
bridge 170 feet long with a clear roadway width of 30 feet. This structure width will
accommodate a 24 foot travelway with three foot shoulders. The approach roadway should
consist of a 24 foot travelway with eight foot usable shoulders.
The alternates studied are shown in Figure 2 and are as follows:
Alternate 1: (Recommended) involves replacing the bridge along the existing roadway
alignment. Traffic will be detoured during construction along existing roads as shown in
Figure 1. In order to provide adequate guardrail on the approaches, the driveway serving the
two residences in the northwest quadrant will be relocated as shown.
Alternate 2: involves replacing the bridge along the existing roadway alignment. A temporary
on-site detour will be provided during construction on the east (downstream) side of the
existing structure. The temporary detour bridge consists of 120 feet in length and 24 feet of
clear roadway width, and should be located approximately 35 feet from the existing structure.
2
A design speed of 40 mph will be provided for the detour. The driveway will be relocated as
shown.
Alternate 3: will relocate the bridge a minimum of 35 feet between centerlines to the east of
the existing bridge. This alternate will involve approximately 1600 feet of new approach
roadway. This realignment would not require a realignment of the driveway for the two
residences in the northwest quadrant as would alternates 1 and 2. However, it will impact
much more vegetation and will take most of the front yard of another residence. Traffic will
be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. The design speed will be 50 MPH.
The 'do-nothing` alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 2031/SR 1609.
The Division Office recommends closing the bridge and that traffic be detoured along existing
roads during construction (see Figure 1).
The Cumberland and Harnett County School Transportation Supervisors have no objections to
Bridge No. 75 being closed during the construction period.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that
rehabilitation of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternatives studied, based on current prices, are as follows:
Recommended
Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3
Structural Removal $ 11,620 $ 11,620 $ 11,620
Structure 255,000 255,000 255,000
Roadway Approaches 77,630 77,630 197,780
Detour Structure and Approaches - 175,850 -
Miscellaneous & Mobilization 68,750 104,900 92,600
Engineering & Contingencies 87,000 100,000 93,000
Right-of-Way/Construction Easements/
Utilities 29,500 33,500 37,500
TOTAL $ 529,500 $ 758,500 $ 687,500
VI. TRAFFIC DETOUR
The Division Engineer concurs that traffic can be detoured on existing roads during the
construction period. A nine month road closure period is anticipated. The detour roadway
and bridges are adequate to accommodate affected traffic during the construction period.
Provision of an on-site detour or relocation is justifiable based on road user costs. However, a
suitable detour route is available that has easy access to US 401 from either side of the
3
bridge. Also, Alternate 1 (an off-site detour during construction) will have less impacts on the
surrounding environment and on residential properties.
A road user analysis was performed based on 1200 vpd and an average of 3.5 miles of
indirectional travel. The cost of additional travel would be approximately $345,000 during the
nine month construction period. The estimated cost of providing a relocation is $158,000,
resulting in a benefit-cost ratio of 2.18. This ratio indicates it is justifiable based on indirect
costs to maintain traffic on-site during the construction period. However, because of the
reasons previously discussed, traffic will detoured on existing roads during construction.
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 75 will be replaced at its existing location with a new structure having a length of
approximately 170 feet. Minor improvements to the existing approaches will be necessary for
a minimum of 400 feet on each side of the bridge. These improvements will be extended
enough to provide adequate superelevation on the curves approaching the bridge. Traffic will
be detoured on existing roads, as shown in Figure 1, during the approximate nine month
construction period. The Division Engineer concurs with this recommended alternate.
A 24 foot pavement with eight foot usable shoulders will be provided on the approaches. A
30 foot clear roadway width is recommended on the replacement structure in accordance with
the current NCDOT Bridge Policy. This will provide a 24 foot travelway with three foot
shoulders across the structure. The design speed is 45 MPH because of the existing curves;
therefore, a design exception will be required.
In order to provide adequate guardrail on the approaches, the driveway serving the two
residences in the northwest quadrant will be relocated as shown in Figure 2.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, the new structure is recommended to have a length
of approximately 170 feet. It is anticipated that the elevation of the new structure will be
approximately the same as the existing bridge. The length and height may be increased or
decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by further hydrologic
studies.
VIII. NATURAL RESOURCES
Biologists visited the project site on November 8, 1992 to verify documented information and
gather field data for a thorough assessment of potential impacts incurred by the alternatives
being considered in the bridge replacement proposal.
The investigation examined the vegetation and conditions surrounding the highway bridge on
SR 2031 spanning the Lower Little River in Cumberland and Harnett Counties, NC, in order to
(1) search for threatened and/or endangered plants, and evidence of habitation by listed
animal species (2) identify unique or prime-quality communities, (3) describe the current
vegetation and wildlife habitat, (4) delineate wetlands, and (5) provide information to minimize
adverse environmental effects of the proposed bridge replacement project.
4
From the south, the existing bridge crosses the Lower Little River at N 3 deg W, roughly at a
right angle to the channel, forming four quadrants. The land within the project area south of
the river is naturally forested except (1) for the mowed roadsides which are about 20 feet
wide, and (2) for the area immediately adjacent the southwest corner of the current bridge,
where space for a new utility shed has been cleared for a distance of about 25 feet from the
existing road. North of the river, natural forest occurs in a strip varying between 80 and 120
feet wide, but beyond this strip the owners of private homes have converted natural forest to
low-maintenance yards by removing selected overstory trees, all shrubs, and mowing the
understory. Roadsides are also mowed north of the river.
Methods
The project area was a circular plot with a radius of 250 feet. Plot center was located in the
middle of the existing bridge. Plant communities within this plot were delineated from aerial
photographs and ground-checked on site. Forest community types follow Eyre (1980).
Within each community, a list of member plant species and general site description was
developed on-site. Dominance (ft2/ac) of woody vegetation layers was determined by the
variable plot method (Husch et al. 1972). Dominance (percent foliar cover) of herbaceous
layers or communities was determined by ocular estimation, using foliar cover guides
developed by Belanger and Anderson (1989). For communities dominated by trees, tree age,
stem diameter at 4.5 feet above the ground (dbh), and total height were measured for the
largest trees. Age was determined from 2-mm increment borings; dbh and height were
measured using d-tape dendrometers and Abney-level hypsometers, respectively (Wilson
1976). Ground distance was determined either by estimation on the ground or by
measurement on aerial photographs, but all other measurements and all species lists were
developed from on-site reconnaissance.
Evidence of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife was sought on-site through close observation of all
available signs. Habitats were characterized based on plant communities, and typical wildlife
communities associated with these habitats were determined. Special attention was given to
features indicative of habitat for species listed as threatened, endangered, or deserving
special concern.
Aquatic system features were noted at three locations on the site: at the bridge and 100 ft
upstream and downstream of the existing structure. Available documentation of water quality
was reviewed (NCDEM 1989, 1991 a, 1991 b). Wetland determinations followed procedures
described by the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Lab. 1987),
and wetland classification follows Cowardin et al. (1979).
4% Biotic Communities
Plant Communities
Two natural plant communities occur within the study area, Loblolly Pine/Sweetgum and
Loblolly Pine/Hardwood. The Loblolly pine/Sweetgum community has no comparable
community named by the Natural Heritage Program, but the Loblolly Pine/Hardwood is
comparable to the early successional stages of the Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Coastal
Plain Subtype) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Private yards occupy about one acre (20
percent) of the study area. Vegetation of these yards is most similar to the overstory of the
5
Loblolly Pine/Hardwood community, described below, but private yards are not considered
further in this section, since they are not dominated by natural processes.
Loblolly Pine/Hardwood. The Loblolly Pine/Hardwood community occupies about three acres
(60 percent) of the project area, all of it on well-drained soils on steep slopes above the Lower
Little River. Water-level of the river is generally two to four feet below the base of the slope,
and this community is therefore well-drained and non-wetland. Within Cumberland County
as whole the Loblolly Pine/Hardwood community is common, occupying 48,867 acres, 21
percent of the total forest cover (Johnson 1990).
The upper canopy contains loblolly pine (Pious taeda), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
yellow-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple (Acer rubrum), white oak (Quercus alba),
white ash (Fraxinus americana), southern red oak (Quercus falcata), blackgum N ssa
s Ivatica , and occasionally black oak (Quercus velutina). In addition, about 10 individuals of
the following species grow scattered along the base of the river bank, half on land and half in
water: river birch (Betula nigra), pondcypress (Taxodium ascendens), swamp blackgum
(Nyssa biflora), smooth alder (Alnus serrulata), and common elderberry (Sambucus
canadensis). These species are not considered a separate community, because of their low
numbers and scattered distribution.
The largest trees are white oaks about 70 years old, 18-inches dbh, and 70 feet tall, although
scattered loblolly pine about 37 years old, 14-inches dbh, and 70 tall, are nearly as large.
The canopy is very heterogeneous, owing to canopy gaps-the result of windthrow, slope
creep, and more-or-less stabilized erosion gullys. The steep slope, varying between 100 and
200 percent, has five old erosion gullys about 6-8 feet deep. One gully northwest of the
existing bridge has been recently stabilized with rock. These three factors created a two-aged
canopy, an older oak overstory and a younger overstory of pine, sweetgum, and
yellow-poplar that regenerated in former canopy gaps. Overstory dominance currently
averages 75 ft2/acre; oak, sweetgum, and loblolly pine occupy the most area, about 20 ff/acre
each; the remaining canopy species listed above provide the remaining 15 ff/acre.
The lower canopy contains flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), sourwood (Oxydendrum
arboreum , sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana), American holly (Ilex opaca), titi C rilla
racemiflora), and redbay (Persea borbonia). The shrub layer is extremely thick, especially on
the north-facing slope where foliar cover averages 85 percent. Foliar cover on the
south-facing slope is lower, averaging 40 percent. The shrub layer contains sparkleberry
(Vaccinium arboreum), doghobble (Leucothoe axillaris), mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia),
pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), sweetleaf (Symplocos tinctoria), blueberry (Vaccinium
tenellum , fetterbush (Leonia lucida and L. li ustrina , chokeberry (Aronia arbutifolia), greater
galiberry (Ilex coriacea), fringetree (Chionanthus virginicus), and strawberry bush (Euonymus
americanus). Interestingly, the mountain laurel along the Lower Little River is in one of the
more southeasterly locations for this species in North Carolina. It undoubtedly survives here
because of the cooler micro-climate commonly found on steep, north-facing slopes.
The ground layer contains few individuals and few species, probably owing to the dense
shrub layer. It contains partridgeberry (Mitchella repens), Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera
is onica , various greenbriers (Smilax rotundifolia, S. Ig auca, and S. bona-nox , wild ginger
(Hexastylis arifolia), bear-grass (Yucca filamentosa), spotted pipsissewa (Chimaphila
maculata , bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), St. John's-wort (Hypericum sp.), yellow
6
jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens), panic grass Panicum sp.) cross-vine (Anisostichus
capreolata), climbing fern (Lygodium palmatum), and uniola grass (Uniola laxa). The
greenbriers, especially Smilax rotundifolia, grow on and over shrubs and trees, making human
passage difficult. Foliar cover of the ground layer averages five percent, lower than would be
typical for pine-oak stands with thinner shrub layers.
Loblolly Pine/Sweetgum. The Loblolly Pine/Sweetgum community occurs in the southern-most
portion of the project area, upslope from the Loblolly Pine/Hardwood community. It occupies
about 1 ac (20 percent) of the project area, developing on abandoned fields, old pastures,
and/or clear-cuts. The Loblolly Pine-Sweetgum community, occupying 83,728 acres or 36
percent of the total forest cover of Cumberland County, is the most common forest type within
the county.
The overstory contains only loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), but sweetgum (Liguidambar
s raciflua , water oak (Quercus nigra), red maple (Acer rubrum), white oak (Quercus alba),
and southern red oak (Quercus falcata) form a sparse sub-canopy. Dominance of the
overstory averages 120 fe/acre, all provided by loblolly pine. The largest trees are loblolly
pines (Pinus taeda), measuring 13-inches dbh and 60 feet tall.
The lower canopy contains winged elm (Ulmus alata), American holly (Ilex opaca), flowering
dogwood (Comus florida), and red maple (Acer rubrum). The shrub layer is sparse, owing to
the dense overstory. It contains serviceberry (Amelanchier canadense), privet Li ustrum
sinense , swamp pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), sweetleaf (Symplocos tinctoria), and
strawberry bush (Euonymus americanus). The ground layer contains greenbrier Smilax
rotundifolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), greenbrier (Smilax bona-nox), trumpet creeper (Cam psis
radicans , Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), broom sedge (Andropogon virginicus),
and common blue violet (Viola papilionacea). Foliar cover of the ground layer averages 10
percent, most of which is provided by Japanese honeysuckle and greenbrier. The remaining
species occur as widely scattered individuals.
Wildlife (General)
The mature Loblolly Pine/Sweetgum and Loblolly Pine/Hardwood forest surrounding this
project provides a varied canopy structure and well-developed midstory component of species
conducive to songbirds. Pine snags and downed logs occur in the mostly decrepit stand in
the northeast quadrant. Several large cavities and excavations were observed in these snags.
Holly, laurel, cedars, and vines are especially abundant in the southeast quadrant. The
berries produced by such species attract a number of avian species.
The following list includes avian species known to inhabit this seral stage in southern forests
of this type: Yellow-billed cuckoo, Red-bellied woodpecker, Pileated woodpecker, Downy
woodpecker, Red-cockaded woodpecker, Great crested woodpecker, Acadian flycatcher,
Eastern wood peewee, Blue jay, Carolina chickadee, Tufted titmouse, White-breasted
nuthatch, Carolina wren, Wood thrush, Yellow-throated vireo, Red-eyed vireo, Northern parula,
Yellow-throated warbler, Ovenbird, Kentucky warbler, Hooded warbler, Common grackle,
Scarlet tanager, Summer tanager,Cardinal, Rufous-sided towhee, Broad-winged hawk.
7
Little evidence of mammal activity was observed on the site, but both hard and soft mast are
abundant, which suggests that the site would be attractive. A deer stand was situated along
the river's northwest bank. A squirrel nest was observed in a large sycamore in the southwest
quadrant where mixed oak and pines occur. Typical coastal plain species are expected to
occur, and the age and condition of the surrounding forest suggests that denning species
would be accommodated.
Physical Resources
Soil
The overall topography surrounding the project area is gently rolling; ridges stand about 100
feet higher than river terraces. Over geologic time, the Lower Little River and associated
feeder creeks have created shallow but wide floodplain terraces, measuring roughly 1.5 miles
in width. The 150 feet contour line marks the approximate boundary between uplands and
the upper terrace. In the project area the modern river, located only about 1000 feet north of
the southern edge of the terrace, has eroded a small, steep-sided canyon whose base is
about 25 feet below the general level of the floodplain.
Geologically, the project area lies on the Cape Fear Formation, constituting Cretaceous-aged
sediments of sandstone and muddy sandstone of the Coastal Plain physiographic region
(Brown 1985). All soils within the project area reflect these parent materials. Mapped
Wickham fine sandy loam (Hudson 1984), the soils are well-drained owing to the combination
of loose-texture and steep relief, and wetland soils are lacking in the project area.
Water
The Lower Little River arises in southwestern Moore County, west of the project, flowing
northeast through Moore, Hoke, and Cumberland Counties to join the Cape Fear River five
miles east of Linden. Typical of most small rivers in the Coastal Plain, the Lower Little River
carries high levels of dissolved organic acids, and it is thereby classified as a black water
river. For much of this distance it forms the boundary between Moore-Hoke Counties and
Harnett-Cumberland Counties. In northwestern Cumberland County, the Lower Little River
forms the northern boundary of Fort Bragg Military Reservation. At the project location the
river forms the boundary between Harnett and Cumberland Counties.
According to the BMAN report (NCDEM 1989), `the major tributaries in this region have
Good-Excellent water quality, but a Fair bioclass ification was assigned to the Little River at
Manchester (below the Fort Bragg WWTP)' in July 1988. In July 1990, this rating was
upgraded to Good-Fair (NCDEM 1991 a). The overall high quality of the water in the upper
reaches of the watershed is attributed to the protection afforded by Fort Bragg military
reservation.
Downstream of the dam at the Fort Bragg water supply (well upstream of this project) to its
confluence with the Cape Fear River, the Lower Little River is rated as having Class C water
(NCDEM 1991 b). Almost all tributaries along upper portions of the river are classed as WS-III
waters, but only two creeks downstream qualify for this category. While this project site is
downstream of the waste treatment plant and far enough removed from the army base that
other local factors may affect water quality, a rope swing and tree mounted platform gave
8
evidence that local residents swim in the river. Fishing, primarily for catfish, was reported by a
local resident.
In early November, the river's flow was considerably above normal conditions due to heavy
rains during the previous week, so it was impossible to obtain accurate data on channel depth
and substrate composition (Table 1). The dark amber color is characteristic of acidic streams
in the area and is consistent with a BMAN notation concerning a site in the upper watershed.
An intermittent drain was noted in the southwest quadrant, creating a small ravine and falls to
the main river channel approximately 25 feet west of the pavement. A number of small
erosion gullies were noted on both sides of the river channel.
Table 1. Characteristics Observed At Lower Little River Crossing.
Observation Point Upstream (100 ft) Existing Downstream (100 ft)
Substrate Too deep to be determined except for muddy areas along the
banks.
Current Flow Strong and swirling.
Channel Width (ft) 65.0
Bank Height (ft) 4.0/25.0 25.0 5.0/25.0
Water Depth (ft) 5.0+
Water Color Dark amber; foamy deposits observed around midstream debris.
Water Odor None
Aquatic Vegetation None
Adjacent Vegetation Mixed pine and hardwood, mostly hardwood on immediate banks.
Wetlands
Associated Bank to bank with no floodplain at this location.
Jurisdictional Topics
Wetlands
No wetland occurs at this location due to the steepness and elevation of the river banks.
While a few obligate and facultative wetland species were observed proximal to the river, their
number was very small.
Protected Species
Under federal law, any federal action which is likely to result in a negative impact to federally
protected plants and animals is subject to review by the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) under one or more provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. In the
9
case of state-funded action, where federal wetland permits are likely to be required, for
example, the USFWS can require consultation to insure that the proposed action does not
jeopardize any endangered, threatened or protected species. Even in the absence of federal
actions, the USFWS has the power, through provisions of Section 9 of the ESA, to exercise
jurisdiction on behalf of a protected plant or animal. The USFWS and other wildlife resource
agencies also exercise jurisdiction in this resource area in accordance with the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 USC 661 et seq). North Carolina laws
are also designed to protect certain plants and animals where statewide populations are in
decline.
Federally Listed Species:
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (Asheville Office) has identified the species listed in Table 2
as endangered in Harnett and Cumberland Counties. Specific treatment of each species
follows Table 2.
Table 2. Federally Listed Species Potentially Occurring in Cumberland and Harnett Counties.
Species Status* Distribution
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E Eastern NC
Cape Fear shiner Notro is mekistocholas) E Rocky and Deep R.
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulieafolia) E Sandhills
Jove's fruit or Pondberry Lindera melissifolia) E
Chaffseed (Schwalbea americans) E
*E= ondangorod.
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis
Red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) nesting colonies usually occur in mature pine (preferably
Longleaf) stands with open understories, contiguous with areas where pines dominate the
surrounding forest to provide suitable foraging habitat. "Suitable habitat consists of pine or
pine-hardwood (50 percent or more pine) stands 30 years of age or older" (Henry 1989).
Although some colonies may be found in pine stands where midstory hardwood
encroachment has occurred, this situation is relatively rare.
As was noted in the discussion of plant communities, habitat suitable for RCW foraging may
occur here but no cavity trees were observed in the study area or are known to occur in the
immediate vicinity. However, RCW colonies are abundant within a few miles of this location
and elsewhere in Cumberland County, especially on the Fort Bragg Military Reservation.
Contiguous forest cover of acceptable type exists both southwest and southeast of the
project.
10
Since the preferred construction alternative is to close the existing bridge and replace the
structure in the present location, no pines will need to be removed. Either a temporary detour
or a bridge relocation would remove pines greater than 30 years old, necessitating a study to
determine RCW status in the area.
Cape Fear shiner Notrois mekistocholas)
The Cape Fear shiner Notro is mekistocholas) is found primarily at various locations along
the Rocky and Deep Rivers. The shiner's range was historically limited and has been further
constrained by damming of its riverine habitat. It needs clean streams with gravel, cobble,
and boulder substrates where pools, riffles, shallow runs, and slackwater areas occur.
According to the Cape Fear Shiner Recovery Plan (USFWS 1988), only four populations of the
Cape Fear Shiner are known to exist, none of them in the Lower Little River in Harnett County.
Specimens were collected from Parkers Creek, a Cape Fear River tributary located in the far
northwest corner of Harnett County. There are no recorded collections of the Cape Fear
Shiner in the Lower Little River Drainage and the occurrence of the fish at this location is
unlikely.
Endangered Plants
Three species of endangered plants occur in Cumberland County, rough-leaved loosestrife
(Lvsimachia asperulieafolia), Jove's fruit (Lindera melissifolia) and Chaffseed (Schwalbea
americans . During the field investigation, none of these species were seen, but timing of the
field investigation was not optimal for observing chaffseed. Records kept by the Natural
Heritage Program of North Carolina do not indicate the presence of any threatened and/or
endangered plants in or near the project area.
Rough-leaved Loosestrife (Lvsimachia aspenilieafolia).
Rough-leaved loosestrife typically occurs in black, sandy peat soils with long hydroperiods
like that found at the edge of seep bog pocosins or boggy flatwood savannas that burn
frequently. Although it has been observed at the edge of woods along roadsides, it more
typically occurs in the understory of open stands dominated by an overstory of longleaf pine
Pings alustris , pond pine Pings serotina , or pondcypress Taxodium ascendens). It rarely
persists in dense hardwood stands lacking fire. Associate hardwoods include swamp
blackgum N ssa biflora , red maple Acer rubrum , and sweetbay (Magnolia vir iniana .
Common understory associates include inkberry Ilex Ig abra, dwarf huckleberry (Gaylussacia
dumosa , pepperbush Clethra alnifolia , honeycup Zenobia pulvurulenta), ground-cedar
(Lycopodium sp.), chain fern (Woodwardia vir inica , three-awn (Aristida stricta), and
white-top sedge (Dichromena latifolia .
This species was not observed during the field investigation. Typical habitat for the species is
completely lacking from the project area, and therefore it is unlikely that rough-leaved
loosestrife occurs. Even though the investigation was not conducted at the optimum time
(early June) for observing this species, rough-leaf loosestrife is nevertheless a distinctive plant
that should have been identifiable, even in early November.
11
Jove's fruit or pondberry Lindera melissifolia).
Jove's fruit or pondberry generally occurs in the southeast at the fringes of cypress-gum
stands, bogs, ponds, and swampy depressions. Thus, it typically grows in either histosol or
inceptisol soils in association with pondcypress axodium ascendens), pond pine Pinus
serotina , red maple Acer rubrum , swamp blackgum N ssa biflora , sweetbay (Magnolia
vir iniana , titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), fetterbush L onia lucida , highbush blueberry (Vaccinium
corymbosum), and netted chain fern (Woodwardia areolata .
Possible but not ideal habitat exists along the river bank, but we did not find any plants.
Since the species is woody, and since females produce bright red fruits, we should have been
able to recognize this species in early November.
Chaffseed (Schwalbea americana .
Chaffseed occurs principally in fire maintained ecosystems: moist pine flatwoods, savannas,
and open oak woods. Acidic sandy loams and sandy peat loams are common host soils.
Chaffseed grows in association with many different grasses and sedges, particularly bluestem
(Andropogon sp.), panic grass Panicum sp.), three-awn Aristida sp.), slough-grass Scleria
sp.), and sedge Carex sp.). Woody associates include longleaf pine Pinus alustris ,
various scrub oaks Quercus spp.), and sweetbay (Magnolia vir iniana .
During the field investigation, we determined that typical habitat for this species is lacking
from the project area, and we did not find any chaffseed. The project area seems too
well-drained and too heavily forested.
State Listed Species:
Contact with staff at the Natural Heritage Program has indicated that Pickering's dawnflower
may be found in the area. S lisma pickeringii var. pickeringii, Pickering's dawnflower,
generally occurs in xeric sandhill communities, maintained by frequent, low-intensity fires.
Growing on either Ultisol or Entisol soils, Pickering's dawnflower typically occurs under an
open canopy of longleaf pine Pinus alustris , but the subcanopy, which may contain turkey
oak Quercus laevis , sand post oak Quercus stellata var. margaretta), bluejack oak Quercus
incana , blackjack oak Quercus marilandica), sassafras Sassafras aldidum and/or
persimmon Dios ros vir iniana , may vary from nearly lacking to rather dense. The shrub
layer may contain dwarf huckleberry (Gaylussacia dumosa and poison-oak (Toxicodendron
pubescens). The ground layer often contains pinelands three-awn Aristida stricta , Elliott's
bluestem (Andropogon rans , stinging nettle (Cnidoscolus stimulosus), piney woods
dropseed (Sporobolus iunceus , and others.
The xeric sandhill community is completely lacking from the study area. Judging from the
thick litter layer, the study area has probably not been burned in 15 to 25 years. During the
field investigation, we did not observe Pickering's dawnflower, and it seems doubtful that it
would occur on a site where fire has been absent for so long.
12
Unique and/or Prime-Quality Habitat.
No unique and/or prime quality habitat was observed during the field survey, although the
thick ericaceous understory on the north-facing slope is an increasingly uncommon ecosystem
in eastern North Carolina.
Impacts
The proposed project will replace an existing bridge with a slightly longer and wider structure
at either the same location or a downstream location, 35 feet to the east. Four alternatives are
possible for this project, and each would have very different effects on the current conditions.
The no-build alternative would incur no changes. However, the deteriorated condition of the
existing structure suggests that this alternative is not viable.
An off-site detour during replacement of the existing structure would have no appreciable long
term impact on the site. Sufficient space exists on either side of the existing bridge and
highway approaches to accommodate a wider structure without removing forest cover. With
proper water quality precautions, project impacts would occur only in the roadside cover type,
where vegetation and habitat values have already been seriously degraded by soil
compaction and prolonged vegetation control.
Locating a temporary on-site detour structure west of the existing bridge would be precluded
by a buried cable and small utility structure. Building a temporary detour structure east of the
existing bridge would remove approximately 0.75 acre of mature mixed pine hardwood forest,
including at least three pine trees older than 37 years. This action would mean immediate
habitat loss for the avian species identified in the wildlife section, though it would increase
habitat for birds using earlier seral stages. Removal of the temporary structure and
approaches after project completion would eventually allow recovery of the affected area to
forest, but this recovery would take several decades and the type would be changed from
Loblolly Pine/Hardwood to Loblolly Pine/Sweetgum.
Elevation and steepness of the river banks suggest that building a temporary structure during
construction is not a particularly prudent option. Constructing a temporary on-site detour
across a steep-walled canyon will be difficult, and the potential for accelerated erosion and
sedimentation into the river would be high from disruption during construction. Judging from
five old erosion gullys within the project area, this erosion could be difficult to control,
especially on a temporary road. Silt fences and hydroseeding seldom prove effective on such
steep grades. Thus, a temporary on-site detour is the least preferred alternative.
Relocating to a point east of the current bridge would remove approximately 1.25 acres of
mixed loblolly pine/hardwood forest, including at least 18 pines greater than 30 years old.
While this alternative would remove more forest cover, the potential for erosion and
sedimentation into the Lower Little River would be lower for this alternative than for the
temporary on-site detour. After construction of the new bridge, removal of the old structure
and paved approaches would eventually result in a recovery of forest land, though with the
same subtle composition change noted above.
Due to the steepness and elevation of the channel banks, no wetland occurs outside of the
actual river channel, so no wetland will be taken by the proposed project.
13
All plants encountered on site are common species, with the possible exception of the
climbing fern (Ly4odium palmatum), which occurs infrequently but is not threatened or
endangered. No adverse impact to plant populations is anticipated from this project, since
adequate populations exist outside the project area.
Permit Coordination
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.O.E. 1344), a
permit will be required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged or
fill material into 'Waters of the United States.'
Since the subject project is classified as a categorical exclusion and since less than one acre
of wetlands will be impacted by the project, it is likely that this project will be subject to the
Nationwide Permit Provisions of 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23. This permit authorizes any activities,
work and discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in
whole or in part, by another federal agency and that the activity is 'categorically excluded'
from environmental documentation because it is included within a category of actions which
neither individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment. However,
final permit decisions are left to the discretionary authority of the United States Army Corps of
Engineers.
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the NC Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources, will be required. This certificate is issued for any activity which
may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal permit is required.
Compensatory mitigation is not required under a Nationwide Permit. Erosion and
sedimentation control measures will be strictly enforced during construction to minimize
unnecessary impacts to stream and wetland ecosystems. Best Management Practices will
also be implemented.
Literature Cited
Belanger, R.P., and R.L. Anderson. 1989. A guide for visually assessing crown densities of
loblolly and shortleaf pines. USDA For. Ser., Southeast For Exp. Sta. Res Note SE-352.
Brown, P. M. 1985. Geologic map of North Carolina. Div. of Land Res., Dept. of Natl. Res.
and Community Dev., Raleigh, NC.
Conant, R. 1975. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians of eastern/central North America.
Houghton Mifflin Company: Boston. 429 pp.
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.
Dept of Interior: Washington, D.C. 103 pp.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Technical
Report Y-87-1, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg MS.
14
Eyre, F.H. (Ed.) 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Soc. of Amer.
For., Washington, DC. Pp. 148 pp., map.
Henry, V. G. 1989. Guidelines for Preparation of Biological Assessments and Evaluations for
the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta, GA.
13 pp. appendices.
Hudson, B. D. 1984. Soil Survey of Cumberland and Hoke Counties. Soil Conserv. Serv., U.S.
Dept. of Agric., Washington, DC. Pp. 155 pp., maps.
Husch, B., C. I. Miller, and T. W. Beers. 1972. Forest mensuration. The Ronald Press Co.,
NY.pp. 410.
Johnson, T. G. 1990. Forest statistics for the southern coastal plain of North Carolina,
1990.USDA For. Ser., Southeast For. Exp. Sta. Bull SE-11.1 pp.52.
NCDEM. 1989. Benthic macroinvertebrate ambient network (BMAN) water quality review
1983-1988. Water Quality Tech. Rept. No. 89-08. NC Dept. of Env., Health, and Nat. Res.,
Div. Env. Mgt., Water Qual. Sect., Raleigh, NC.
NCDEM. 1991 a. Biological assessment of water quality in North Carolina streams: benthic
macroinve rte b rate data base and long term changes in water quality, 1983-1990. NC Dept. of
Env., Health, and Nat. Res., Div. Env. Mgt., Water Qual. Sect., Raleigh, NC.
NCDEM. 1991 b. Classifications and water quality standards assigned to the waters of the
Cape Fear River Basin. NC Dept. Envir. Health, and Nat. Res.: Raleigh, North Carolina.
Schafale, M. P. and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North
Carolina, Third Approximation. N. C. Natl. Heritage Prog., Div. of Parks and Recreation, N. C.
Dept. of Environ., Health, and Natl. Res., Raleigh. Pp. 325.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Cape Fear Shiner recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Atlanta, GA. 18 pp.
Webster, W. D.; J. D. Parnell; and W. C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia,
and Maryland. Univ. of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill, NC. 255 p.
Wilson, R. L. 1976. Elementary forest surveying and mapping. Oregon State Univ. Book
Stores, Inc., Corvallis. Pp. 1.
15
IX. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal 'Categorical Exclusion' due to its limited scope and
insignificant environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement 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 regulation. No change
in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right of way acquisition will be
limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
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.
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.
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 that if a federally funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a property
listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be given an opportunity to comment.
The area of potential effect (APE) of the subject project was reviewed in the field and is shown
on Figure 2. No properties over fifty years old were found in the APE. The bridge itself was
built in 1958.
Since there are no properties either listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places within the APE, no further compliance with Section 106 is required with respect to
historic properties.
The State Historic Preservation Officer has recommended that an intensive archaeological
survey be completed. The survey will be accomplished prior to construction.
Since the bridge is to be replaced in its present location, the project is exempt from the
Farmland Protection Policy Act.
The project is located within the Sandhills Air Quality Control Region. The ambient air quality
for Cumberland and Harnett Counties has been determined to be in compliance with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Since this project is located in an area where the
State Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any transportation control measures, the
16
conformity procedures of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 770 do not apply
to this project.
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, its impact on noise levels
and air quality will be insignificant. Noise levels could increase during construction but will be
temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance
with applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements
of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 770 and 772 and no additional reports are
required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the
North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed
no underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Cumberland and Harnett Counties are participants in the National Flood Insurance Regular
Program. The approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 4. The
amount of floodplain area to be affected is not considered to be significant.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in the alignment
would result in a crossing of about the same magnitude. The alignment of the project is
perpendicular to the floodplain area. All reasonable measures will be taken to minimize any
possible harm.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no adverse environmental effects
will result from implementation of the project.
17

>... -- -
?o 2026 2.b

-- 39 %0 2026
HARNETT COUNTY
?.? ?• h 4 C? '?4 20
2039
o BRIDGE NO. 75 401 2027
.
2007 (p %? .4 2027 ? 1
t
Creek Zoos `- ???
0
203
?
i
43.1
• 1.5

? 17
LINDEM?: :y

1 o c> 365
1706
1700
1609

' 170
1702
q 1702
V

NORTH CAROLINA DICPARTMUNT OF
TIIAN©POIITATION
??.•??•• (; DIVIOION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND IDNVIR01MENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 75
CUMBERLAND AND HARNETT
COUNTIES
B-2836
1 i STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE 11/92 o mi. FIG. 1

3 V
H
f
a
om

X00

0,1
d: 04 =
n
N
OWCO
z F=
0
?M O W J08
0

o ?aM
k?aaw Q'
m
O
°
M
N
N
U

F-
Q
Z
cc
W
H
AINno3 ONVIU39W
L
n
O
Z
W
C7
D
Im
0 F"I
W,
0W
Z?
WQ
?Z
?Q
OW
UJ
W
lM Q
0:4`02

P?

BRIDGE NO. 75
CUMBERLAND AND
HARNETT COUNTIES
B-2836
LOOKING NORTH
f i f f.
i
I
LOOKING SOUTH
Far,

ZONE A
v?
ZONEi

h
117
11

L73
CUMBERLAND AND HARNETT COUNTIES
ZONE A
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
cou
-Y
N7
BERI?
)NE
?, OCJf?'1?'-ti ?.

ZONE X
J
FIGURE 4

stnrr
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
March 19, 1993
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replacement of Bridge No. 75 on SR 2031 over
Lower Little River, Cumberland and Harnett
Counties, B-2836, BRZ-2031(1), ER 93-8377
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
C IF
AMR 2 3
1993
2
? D1V/.S/
ti
Hl? ?,,C
OF

On March 2, 1993, Robin Stancil of our staff met with North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning the above
project. We reported our available information on historic architectural and
archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations. NCDOT
provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting and for
our use afterwards.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries.
However, the project area has never been systematically surveyed to determine
the location of significance of archaeological resources.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced
archaeologist to identify the presence and significance of archaeological remains
that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on
unknown resources should be assessed prior to the initiation of construction
activities.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a
Categorical Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT
addressed our concerns.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Vic,
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 9z P
Nicholas L. Graf
March 19, 1993, Page 2
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration.- If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Since ly,
a I Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: L. J. Ward
B. Church
T. Padgett
SiArj,s r=t ? ?? r?
FEB ;2 3
Z 1
993
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TAMES B. HUNT. IR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
Fayetteville, North Carolina 28302
February 19, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Jack Ward, P.E.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ATTENTION: Mr. Jay Bissett,P.E.
FROM: D. R. Dupreecyv-?-?--
DIVISION CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER
SUBJECT: B-2836 REPLACE1ENT OF BRIDGE NO. 75 OVER
LO11M LITTLE RIVER AT THE CUMBE J.JUM-HARi1EZT
COUNTY LINE
DSA Design Group has asked that we make a recommendation to you
regarding the handling of traffic during the replacement of the
subject structure. A majority of the traffic crossing this
structure are commuters to the Fayetteville area.
We recommend that traffic be detoured along SR 2027 and US 401, a
distance of approximately 5.8 miles. Local residents and daily
commuters probably will not utilize this detour route inasmuch as
alternate routes (SR 2030, SR 2045) are available.
If additional information is needed, please advise.
DRD:lmw

(r?aitl!'.rr?ilIi? L111I1IIlj 1If11111??,
:;? ?I rilii!'rt?,11llrrrill Lu;?'?t11Iilt
J1J-L? U-?JUlI
..lit 11 li :. ?_IN r,r.i_?••4 ??!•'•'. lulrA H. GRIFt1A, ;}:.. ?, _... .__.. ?t? ,`. i!'.;
February 9f 1993
n,l.l, ,. U\l 1.\I'?utl
Mr. Keith D. Lewis, P.E.
Project Manager - Transportation
5511 Capital Center Drive
Suite P-100
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
Dear Mr. Lewis:
I regret not receiving your first correspondence on the Lower Little River
(NCDOTTIP#B-2836, Bridge #75) Project.
After evaluating this project, it was determined that we do not have any bus
routes which would be affected.
If I may be of further assistance, please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Ted P. Chappell
Director of Transportation
TPC:cph
'.1..1 (Y ', /.::'.'' O l.', 1.17 ( C 1.'.