19940184 Ver 1_Complete File_19940301

« K 9 w.

dHa SUTFo?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF 1PANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
February 23, 1994-
D? S-'" ct .. n ilie=-
=J. S . Army CG_ps ?Z E 119 1 11 _= e rS
P. C. B.o._
,x_111 , ngtGn, :Grt . arol?n a
r,_mmLni..m?Vilj. RegaatoBra_ct.
;Dear Sir:
WATER 6i
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
Gi.ii?iJ ec V v'..t i111Jei lal." ...'G tlii :J 1. dgC .`lv t (J SR l:? 00 over
?tl lVv 3y; - ?a r P1-r- c I''tim"n r 8 . 24 2 C, I ,
T P ?o. B-22 535
tttached -":or your ]n Gi'::iatlGli is a CGpy GI_ he project
j mac,
r1 ---? 1 ''1 ^ o r j F, t '- `
y _ O? eCL i
p
al-i ing --e_p crt - f or the _
j _c ? r G _C I
?ein.c proceS o d b z h e Faaera1 Hi 91-1tiay Adnllnistra ioli as a
"Categorical Zxc1us1on" in ccGrdance wit! '3 ?F? 7;? 11 (b;.
- ;e=ore Je do l1Gt and iC _ te =e Cu?sy, 'i:'? 'r. t_ '1 al
Perim i %L'tt pr -pos- e zo prGC =eCi %iIlder Na ?r G17:'1de P =.i,it 1n
a Gi auil: e ali Lt< 330 ?Gali i<i tB`? 3 j -ss7--ed 'zqo ?taber
i 9)i, by the COryS Gi Liig=i:eerile Ovi: o=
ecticn 33.0 ar.d' Append.. ?. (C') of z ? eguiations will
Gllowed in the construction Gf the project.
We anticipate that-101 General Cert-ification No. 2745
(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 Environ,.maental Management, for their review.

w y
n
If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call Cyndi Bell at [phone].
Sincerely,
B. J. 'Qui° n, P.E.
Assista 1.1 anager,
Planning and Environmental Branch
BJC/clb
AL-L C 2llt
cc: C:CE , Wilmington Field Of f ice
John Dor ney, DEH 1R, DEM
John Parker, DEHNR, DICN/Permit C:oorC inator
Kelly Barger, P . E . , Program Development Branch
Don Morton, Y.E., Highway Design
A.L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Jc17n L. Smith, Jr., P.E., St=ucttre Design
Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design .
B.G. Payne, P.E., Division 10 Engineer
Michelle Fishburne, Planning & Environmental
Davis Moore, Planning & Environmental
{.

•
Cumberland County, SR 1600
Bridge No. 1
over Little River
State Project No. 8.2441201
Federal-Aid Project BRSTP-1600(4)
T.I.P. No. B-2535
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
3
of '4 ?'
D to H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental B ch, NCDOT
Date ichola . Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA

•
4w,
Columbus County, SR 1600
Bridge No. 1
over Little River
State Project No. 8.2441201
Federal-Aid Project BRSTP-1600(4)
T.I.P. No. B-2535
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
December 1993
Documentation Prepared by Carter & Burgess, Inc.:
ARO

Thomas McCloskey = ?VQ
Project Engineer SEAL
i % 10359 0

INS. N
?°?
o?DO
A
Thomas R. He r, P.E. o
%
Project Manager
For The North Carolina Department of Transportation:
(?x ao_(? \
L. G d Grime , . E., Unit Head
Consulting Engineering Unit
?2cc.??l'.?-?i? 21,2SD?CpJ! ,(?UO?yZGU?
Michelle Wagoner Fishburne
Project Planning Engineer
0
Cumberland County, SR 1600
Bridge No. 1
over Little River
State Project No. 8.2441201
Federal-Aid Project BRSTP-1600(4)
T.I.P. No. B-2535
Bridge No. 1 is included in the 1994-2000 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program.
The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated as a
result of this action. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion."
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENT
All standard procedures and measures, including the NCDOT "Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters", will be implemented to avoid or minimize environmental
impacts. No special or unique environmental commitments are necessary.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 1 will be replaced in its existing location as shown by Alternate 1 A in Figure 2.
The recommended replacement structure for Bridge No. 1 is a bridge having a length of 220
feet. The proposed clear deck width of 30 feet will provide a 24-foot travelway with three
foot shoulders.
The bridge approaches will provide a 24-foot pavement width with eight foot minimum
shoulders. The grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the grade of the
existing structure.
Traffic will be maintained on-site during the construction period by providing a temporary
detour on the south side of the existing structure.
The estimated cost of the project, based on current prices, is $954,000. The estimated cost of
the project, as shown in the 1994 - 2000 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program, is
$1,175,000.
40
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
occurring west of the structure. Five hundred feet west of the structure, SR 1798 forms a tee
intersection with SR 1600. The speed limit is 55 mph.
SR 1600 is classified as a urban collector route in the Statewide Functional Classification
System. In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1600 has an 20-foot pavement with six foot
shoulders. The vertical alignment is generally flat. The horizontal alignment is in a tangent.
The structure is situated 35 feet above the creek bed. The approaches are on embankments
ranging up to five feet above natural ground. Land use in the immediate vicinity of the bridge
is primarily woodland and farmland, with mixed residential and commercial development
The current traffic volume of 1500 VPD is expected to increase to approximately 2600 VPD
by the year 2015. The projected volume includes 1 % truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and
3% dual-tired vehicles (DTT).
The existing bridge (Figure 3) was constructed in 1952. The superstructure consists of a
timber deck and rails on steel I-beams. The substructure is composed of reinforced concrete
caps, on timber piles with supplemental timber bents and sills.
The overall length is 201.2 feet. The clear roadway width is 24.3 feet. The posted weight
limit is 13 tons for single vehicles and 17 tons for trucks with trailers.
Overhead powerlines and underground/overhead telephone lines parallel the roadway to the
north.
Bridge No. 1 has a sufficiency rating of 6.6 compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
Seven accidents were reported near Bridge No. 1 during the period from January 1, 1989 to
April 30, 1992.
Coordination with local school bus officials indicated that two school bus trips are made across
the bridge daily.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Several replacement alternatives were considered for Bridge No. 1. The "do-nothing"
alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not prudent due to the
traffic service provided by SR 1600. "Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to
its age and deteriorated condition. The wooden deck was replaced in 1992 to provide a few
more years of service. The recommended alternative for replacement of Bridge No. 1 is a
bridge 220 feet in length with a 30-foot clear deck width which will provide a 24-foot
2
travelway with three foot shoulders. The roadway approaches will consist of 24 feet of
pavement with a eight foot minimum shoulders.
Four alternatives were studied for the replacement of Bridge No 1. The alternatives studied
incorporated 60 mph design speeds and are described as follows:
Alternate lA Bridge No. 1 will be replaced at its present location. During construction traffic
will be maintained on-site with a temporary detour structure. The temporary detour structure
will be a bridge 120 feet in length located immediately north of Bridge No. 1.
Alternate 111 (Recommended) Bridge No. 1 will be replaced at its present location. During
construction traffic will be maintained on-site with a temporary detour structure. The
temporary detour structure will be a bridge of 120 feet in length located immediately south of
Bridge No. 1.
Alternate 2 Bridge No. 1 will be replaced at its present location. Traffic will be detoured off-
site along existing roads during the construction period. The shortest available detour will
require 11.2 miles of additional travel. This would result in an substantial inconvenience to
the 1600 vehicles per day using the roadway, and a total user cost exceeding $900,000.
Alternate 3 consists of relocating the bridge approximately 60 feet south of the existing
roadway alignment. This alternate consists of approximately 1700 feet of relocation,
beginning at the intersection of SR 1798 and reconnecting to the existing road approximately
1000 feet east of the bridge. Traffic will be maintained on the existing structure while the
replacement structure is constructed. This alternate was eliminated due to the excessive cost,
possible impact to local residences and the undesirable to mature forest land. This alternate
offers no significant alignment improvements to SR 1600. It also places the proposed structure
within a curved alignment, which is reflected in increased costs.
V. ESTIMATED COST
Estimated costs of the studied alternatives are as follows:
(Recommended)
Alt. 1A Alt. 1 B Alt. 2 Alt. 3
Structure
Permanent Roadway Approaches
Temporary Detour Structure
Temporary Detour
Structure Removal
Engineering & Contingencies
Right-of-Way, Utilities
Total
Design Speed
$439,000 $439,000 $439,000 $454,000
34,500 34,500 34,500 386,000
91,000 91,000 --- ---
173,000 173,000 67,000 ---
57,500 57,500 36,000 36,000
126,000 126,000 86,500 133,000
33,000 28,000 --- 55,000
$954,000 $949,000 $663,000 $1,064,000
60 mph 60 mph 60 mph 60 mph
3
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 1 is recommended to be replaced at its existing location. Relocation offers no
improvement to the existing alignment, increases construction costs and presents greater
environmental impacts.
The recommended structure length for Bridge No. 1 is 220 feet. The proposed clear deck
width of 30 feet will provide a 24-foot travelway with 3-foot shoulders.
According to a preliminary hydrographic study, the new structure is recommended to have a
length of approximately 220 feet to accommodate the 50 year design storm of Little River,
with consideration given to the effects of the structure on the 100 year design storm. The
elevations of the new crossings are proposed to be approximately the same as the elevation at
the existing bridges. The structure dimensions will be assessed and modified, as necessary,
during final design.
The proposed improvements will include approximately 500 feet of roadway approach work.
A 24-foot pavement width with eight foot minimum shoulders will be provided on the
approaches.
During construction an on-site detour will be incorporated on the south side to handle traffic
with minimal inconvenience (see Alternate 1B). This alternate was chosen because of lower
cost and minimization of utility impact.
VIII. NATURAL RESOURCES
Ecologists visited the project site to verify documented information and to gather field data for
an assessment of potential impacts by alternatives being considered in the bridge replacement
proposal. The investigation documented conditions surrounding the SR 1600 highway bridge
spanning the Lower Little River in Cumberland County, NC. This project is located just
inside the Cumberland-Harnett County line, 1.4 miles north of the Fort Bragg Boundary.
The investigation's purpose was to (1) search for protected plants and animal species; (2)
identify unique or prime-quality biological communities; (3) describe the current vegetation
and wildlife habitat; (4) determine wetland impacts; and (5) provide information to minimize
adverse environmental impacts.
Methods
The project area was a circular plot with a radius of 250 feet enclosing 4.5 acres. The plot
center was located in the middle of the current bridge. Plant communities within this plot
were delineated from aerial photographs and ground-checked on site. Forest community types
4
follow Eyre (1980). Within each community, a list of member plant species and general site
descriptions was developed on-site. Dominance (0/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 breast height (dbh - 4.5 feet above the ground), 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 feet
upstream and downstream of the existing structure. Available documentation of water quality
was reviewed (NCDEM 1989, 1991, 1993). Wetland determinations followed procedures
described by the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Lab. 1987),
and wetland classification follows Cowardin et al. (1979).
Plant Communities
The project study area is naturally forested except for the mowed roadsides which are about
ten feet wide south of the bridge and about 30 feet wide north of the bridge. Roadsides are
wider on the north side because powerlines, underwhich the vegetation is regularly controlled,
parallel the road. Several wide paths, used largely by recreational fishermen, occur in the
northeast quadrant. Vegetation along the paths has fewer trees and shorter shrubs, but species
composition is similar. The non-vegetated area is estimated to cover 0.8 acre or 18 percent of
the study area.
A Loblolly Pine/Sweetgum plant community occurs naturally within the study area and
occupies 3.7 acres (82 percent) of the study area. The Loblolly Pine/Sweetgum community
has no comparable community type named by the Natural Heritage Program (Schafale and
Weakley 1990). This community typically develops in abandoned fields, old pastures, and/or
clear-cuts, and without disturbance it is nearly always succeeded by a community dominated
by hardwoods. In the study area, this community is well-developed and mature to very
mature. Occupying 83,728 acres or 36 percent of the total forest cover of Cumberland
County, this is the most common forest type within the county.
The overstory of the Loblolly Pine/Sweetgum community contains only loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda), but sweetgum (Liquidambar slyraciflua), water oak (Quercus nigra), red maple (Acer
5
rubrum), southern red oak (Quercus falcata), and blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), form a sub-
canopy. Mistletoe (Phoradendron serotinum) grows on several of the red maple trees.
Canopy dominance, largely loblolly pine, averages 150 ft2/acre. The largest trees are
scattered loblolly pines that occur as super-dominants trees that probably survived logging or
bark beetle attacks around the year 1927. These super-dominants measure about 28-inches
dbh, 95 feet tall, and are approximately 96 years old. Most loblolly pines, however, are
smaller and younger, probably having regenerated in canopy gaps in a previous loblolly stand.
These trees measure about 20 inches dbh, 85 feet tall, and are approximately 65 years old.
The lower canopy contains American holly (Ilex opaca), flowering dogwood (Cornus florid
a),
red maple (Acer rubrum), post oak (Quercus stellata), sweetbay (Magnolia vir ing iana),
mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), black cherry (Prunus serotina), titi (Cyrilla
racemiflora), eastern redcedar (Juniperus vir iniana), and southern red oak Quercus falcata).
Foliar cover of the shrub layer averages 30 percent. This layer contains serviceberry
(Amelanchier canadensis), privet (Ligustrum sinense), swamp pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia),
sweetleaf (Symplocos tinctoria), red chokeberry (Sorbus arbutifolia), mountain laurel (Kalmia
latfolia), fetterbushes (Lyonia li usg trina and L. lucid a), French mulberry (Calliaroa
americana), inkberry (Ilex lg abra), blueberry (Vaccinium tenellum), silverling (Baccharis
halimifolia), sparkleberry (Vaccinium arboreum), silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), and
strawberry bush (Euonymus americanus).
The ground layer is sparse, owing to the thick litter layer and dense shade cast from the tree
and shrub layers, and possibly from high soil acidity caused by the pine overstory and
ericaceous understory. Foliar cover averages less than ten percent, provided mostly by
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) and giant cane (Arundinariagi ag ntea). In addition,
the ground layer contains scattered individuals of greenbriers (Smilax rotundifolia and S.
lauca), poison-ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides),
bear-grass (Yucca filamentosa), partridge berry (Mitchella repens), yellow jessamine
(Gelsemium sempervirens), southern lady fern (Athyrium asplenioides), yellow-root
(Xanthorhiza simplicissima), and cross-vine (Anisostichus capreolata).
About 30 additional individuals grow in shallow water at the river bank. These species,
swamp blackgum (Nvssa biflora), pondcypress (Taxodium ascendens), river birch (Betula
nigra), ash (Fraxinus sp., possibly F. caroliniana), smooth alder (Alnus serrulata), and netted
chain fern (Woodwardia areolata), are not considered a separate plant community, because
they grow as scattered individuals within the bank-to-bank wetland of the river.
Wildlife (General)
The very mature Loblolly Pine/Sweetgum forest surrounding this project provides a varied
canopy structure and a well-developed component of midstory species conducive to songbirds.
Pine snags and downed logs occur in all four quadrants, providing excellent woodpecker
foraging and nesting habitat. Holly and other soft mast bearing species in the understory also
provide attractive habitat for songbirds.
6
Dickson et al. (1980) indicate that 13 species of songbirds may be abundant or common in
such habitats: Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), Pine warbler (Dendroica ip nus), White-eyed
vireo (Vireo rig 'seus), Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus) Tufted titmouse (Parus
bicolor), Summer tanager (Pirnga rubra), Hooded warbler (Wilsonia citrina), Red-eyed vireo
(Vireo olivaceus), Yellow-throated warbler (Dendroica dominica), Black-and-White warbler
(Miniotilta varia), Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis), Eastern wood-pewee (Contopus
wens), and Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus). Another 28 songbird species may
be regular visitors or present occasionally.
Little evidence of mammal or herptile activity was observed on the site, but typical coastal
plain species are expected to occur. The age and condition of the surrounding forest suggests
that it would accommodate denning species. Similar, though younger, forest cover surrounds
the study site on the south side, so migration through this site is expected to occur.
Abundant evidence (bait containers, old tackle) discarded on the site and well-beaten paths
indicate fishing activity, and a local resident reported that catfish (Ictalurus sp.) are usually
caught in the river. Otherwise the site presented no outstanding features indicative of wildlife
presence.
Physical Resources
The overall topography surrounding the project is gently rolling; ridges stand about 100 feet
higher than river terraces. Over geologic time, the Lower Little River and associated feeder
creeks 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 estimated 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.
Aquatic Resources
The Lower Little River arises in southwestern Moore County and flows northeast through
Moore, Hoke, and Cumberland Counties to join the Cape Fear River five miles east of Linden.
Typical of most small Coastal Plain rivers, the Lower Little River carries high levels of
dissolved organic acids and is thereby classified as a black water river.
Table 1 summarizes channel and stream characteristics found at the project site.
7
In early November, the river's flow was considerably above normal due to heavy rains during
the previous week, so it was impossible to obtain accurate channel depth and substrate
composition data on-site. The normal depth is reported to be six feet. 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.
According to the BMAN report (NCDEM 1989), "the major tributaries in this region have
Good-Excellent water quality, but a Fair bioclassification 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 1991a). 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.
Table 1. Stream Characteristics Observed At Lower Little River Crossing.
Observation Point Upstream (100 ft) Existing Downstream (100 ft)
Substrate Mud
Current Flow Strong
Channel width (ft) 65.0 60.0 50.0
Bank Height (ft) 5.0 4.0 5.0
Water Depth (ft) 6.0+ 6.0+ 6.0+
Water Color Dark amber
Water Odor None
Aquatic Vegetation None
Adjacent Vegetation Pine with some cypress and sweetgum on immediate banks.
Wetlands Associated Bank to bank with no floodplain at this location.
+ Bridge report records indicate six foot depth under normal conditions.
From downstream of the Fort Bragg water supply dam (located upstream of this project) to its
confluence with the Cape Fear River, the Lower Little River is classified as Class C waters
(NCDEM 1993) and suitable for agricultural, wildlife, and fish propagation, but not for
human consumption and contact recreation. Almost all tributaries along portions of the river
above the Fort Bragg water supply dam are classed as WS-III waters, but only two creeks
downstream qualify for this category. This project site is 2.6 miles downstream of the sewage
treatment plant and far enough removed from the army base that other local factors may affect
water quality.
8
Jurisdictional Topics
Wetlands
No wetland occurs at this location because of the steepness and elevation of the river banks and
the well-drained soils. While some obligate and facultative wetland species were observed,
they were located on the sloping banks and their number was 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 Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) under
one or more provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. The FWS 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 sec). North
Carolina laws are also designed to protect certain plants and animals where statewide
populations are in decline.
Federally Listed Species
The Fish and Wildlife Service (Asheville Office) has identified the protected species listed in
Table 2 as occurring in Cumberland County.
Table 2. Federally Listed Protected Species for Cumberland County.
Species Status* Distribution
Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) E Eastern NC
Rough-leaved Loosestrife (Lysimacia asperuliaefolia) E Sandhills
Jove's fruit or Pondberry Lindera melissaefolial E
Chaffseed (Schwalbea americana) E
*E= endangered; T= threatened; CH= critical habitat determined; P= proposed.
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides boreali s (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.
Habitat suitable for RCW foraging occurs at this site but no cavity trees were observed in the
study area, 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.
9
Closing the existing bridge and replacing the structure in the present location would not
remove pines. However, 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. Surveys
were conducted by a qualified biologist for RCW colony activity in the study area. The
surveys were conducted for contiguous habitats within 0.5 mile of the project location. No
active colonies occur within the 0.5 mile radius of the proposed action, therefore the proposed
project will not result in any impacts to the RCW.
Rough-leaved Loosestrife L simacia aspgruliaefoll 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 (Pinus aln ustris), pond pine (Pinus serotina), or pondcypress
(Taxodium ascendens). It rarely persists in dense hardwood stands lacking fire. Associate
hardwoods include swamp blackgum (N.yssa biflora), red maple (Acer rubrum), and sweetbay
(Magnolia virginiana). Common understory associates include inkberry (Ilex giabra), dwarf
huckleberry (Gaylussacia dumosa), pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), honeycup (Zenobia
pulvurulenta), ground-cedar (Lycopodium sp.), chain fern (Woodwardia vir ig nW, three-awn
(Aristida stricta), and white-top sedge (Dichromena latifolia).
This species was not observed during the field investigation. Even though the investigation
was not conducted at the optimum time (early June) for observing this species, rough-leaf
loosestrife is a distinctive plant that should have been identifiable from dead stalks, even in
early November. More importantly, the typical habitat for the species is completely lacking
from the project area, consequently it is unlikely that rough-leaved loosestrife occurs;
therefore, no impacts to this species will occur as a result of this project.
Jove's fruit or pondberry (Linde ra melissaefolia) 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 (Taxodium
ascendens), pond pine (Pinus serotina), red maple (Acer rubrum), swamp blackgum (Nyssa
biflora), sweetbay (Magnolia vir i niana), titi (Cvlla racemiflora), fetterbush (Leonia lucida),
highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), and netted chain fern (Woodwardia areolata).
Although marginal but not ideal habitat exists along the river bank, no plants were observed.
The species is woody and females produce bright red fruits which would have been easily
detectable in early November, however no species or evidence of the species were found.
Therefore, impacts to this species will not occur as a result of this project.
Chaffseed (Schwalbea americana) 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 ( uercus spp.), and sweetbay (Magnolia vireniana).
10
Typical habitat for this species is lacking from the project area, and the chaffseed was not
found. Therefore, no impacts to this species will occur as a result of this project.
Records kept by the NC Natural Heritage Program do not indicate the presence of any
threatened and/or endangered plants in or near the project area.
State Listed Species
Four state-protected plant species occur in Cumberland County: rough-leaved loosestrife
(Lysimacia asperuliaefolia), chaffseed (Schwalbea americana), Jove's fruit (Lindera
melissaefolia), and Pickering's dawnflower (Stylisma pickeringii var. pickeringii). The first
three are discussed above, Pickering's dawnflower discussion follows.
Pickering's dawnflower (Stylisma pickeringii var. pickeringii) 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 palustris). 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 (Diospvros
virginiana), 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
gyrans), stinging nettle (Cnidoscolus stimulosus), piney woods dropseed (Sporobolus junceus),
and others.
Records kept by the NC Natural Heritage Program indicate the presence of Pickering's
dawnflower along the Little River, near SR 1609, a location about seven miles east of the
project area. The xeric sandhill community is completely lacking from the project area and,
judging from the thick litter layer, the project area has probably not been burned in 15 to 25
years. During the field investigation, Pickering's dawnflower was not observed, and it seems
doubtful that it would occur on a site where fire has been absent for so long; therefore, no
impacts to this species will occur as a result of this project.
Unique and/or Prime-Quality Habitat.
The project area contains a very mature Pine/Sweetgum community, an increasingly
uncommon condition in North Carolina. However, Pine/Sweetgum community is the most
common forest type in Cumberland County. Numerous pine snags occur, indicating general
decline of the overstory loblolly pines, which will probably all die within the next 10 to 50
years.
11
Impacts
Several alternatives incurring different impacts were considered for the project.
Relocating the bridge to the south would require clearing 1500 linear feet of mature forest for
a width of approximately 70 feet. The major clearing would occur east of the existing bridge.
This alternative would eliminate about 1.2 acres of relatively old growth Loblolly/Sweetgum
forest. Assuming the old pavement were removed and pine/sweetgum planting was
implemented, a reclamation of approximately one half acre of woodland could be realized.
Building a temporary detour structure on the north would remove a slightly smaller amount
(0.6 acre) of mature forest than would locating it on the south (0.7 acre). Either action would
mean an immediate habitat decrease for avian species and removal of pines greater than 30
years old (at least six on the south, five on the north). Removal of the temporary structure and
approaches after project completion would eventually allow affected areas to return to forest,
increasing habitat for birds using earlier seral stages. Recovery to mature forest would take
several decades, and the type would be changed from Loblolly Pine/Hardwood to
Loblolly/Sweetgum.
An off-site detour during replacement would have no appreciable impact on the environment.
During any road construction activity some soil erosion will undoubtedly occur. Uncontained
erosion sediments could enter the river and be deposited downstream. In sufficient quantities,
such deposits clog and restrict drainage and smother aquatic organisms, especially bottom-
dwelling and bottom-reproducing species. The NCDOT "Best Management Practices for the
Protection of Surface Waters" will be implemented, where practicable, to avoid and minimize
impacts to the stream and bottomland vegetation.
The Loblolly Pine/Sweetgum forest community is very common in Cumberland County,
accounting for 36 percent of the forest cover, although most is much younger. Due to the
habitat type's regional commonality, the project will incur relatively minor impacts from the
small losses predicted. The removals will occur along the roadside edge and therefore neither
affect the oldest specimens on the site nor further fragment habitat; however, forest edge
relationships will be altered, potentially affecting the habits of some species using this site.
Since no active colonies occur within 0.5 miles of the proposed action, the proposed project
will not result in any impacts to the Red-cockaded Woodpecker.
Permit Coordination
An individual Section 404 permit will not be required from the Corps of Engineers because the
conditions of Section 404 Nationwide Permit #23, Categorical Exclusion, under 33 CFR 330
Appendix A (B-23) are applicable. 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
12
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 #2734, administered through the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR), 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.
Erosion and sedimentation control measures will be strictly enforced during construction to
minimize unnecessary impacts to stream and wetland ecosystems. NCDOT "Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters" will also be implemented.
IX. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
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 have no 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
significant change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
A telephone and power cable will require relocation for construction of the detour.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition will be
limited. No relocations are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
Since the bridge is to be replaced in its present location, the project is exempt from the
Farmland Protection Policy Act.
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
13
listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation be given an opportunity to comment.
There are no structures in the project area over 50 years of age. The State Historic
Preservation Officer reviewed the project and determined that there were no structures eligible
for the National Register; therefore, no further compliance with Section 106 is required.
The State Historic Preservation Officer also reviewed the archaeological aspects of the project
and recommended that no archaeological investigations be conducted in connection with this
project (see appendix).
The project does not involve any Section 4(f) properties. There are no publicly-owned parks,
historic sites, recreational facilities or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state or local
significance in the vicinity of the project.
The project is located within the Southern Piedmont Air Quality Control Region. The ambient
air quality for Cumberland County has been determined to be in compliance with the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards. This project is located in an area where the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any transportation control measures.
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
this increase 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 County is a participant 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 or greater magnitude. The alignment of the project is
perpendicular to the floodplain area. All reasonable measures will be taken to minimize harm.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no adverse environmental effects will
result from implementation of the project.
14
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.
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 p.
Dickson, J. G., R. N. Conner, and J. H. Williamson. 1980. Relative abundance of breeding
birds in forest stands in the southeast. S. J. Appl. For. 4 (4):174-179.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg MS.
Eyre, F.H. (Ed.) 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Soc. of Amer.
For., Washington, DC. Pp. 148 p., 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 p. appendices.
Hudson, B. D. 1984. Soil survey of Cumberland and Hoke Counties. Soil Conserv. Serv.,
U.S. Dept. of Agric., Washington, DC. 155 p., maps.
Husch, B., C. I. Miller, and T. W. Beers. 1972. Forest mensuration. The Ronald Press Co.,
NY. 410 p.
Johnson, T. G. 1990. Forest statistics for the southern coastal plain of North Carolina, 1990.
USDA For. Ser., Southeast For. Exp. Sta. Bull 5E-11.1 52 p.
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. 1991a. Biological assessment of water quality in North Carolina streams: benthic
macroinvertebrate 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.
15
w
NCDEM. 1991b. 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. 325 p.
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. 1 p.
16

VIN Oll luw % AV L' m
LITTLE RIVER
B-2535
' 0 mile 1 FIG.1 1
B-2535
BRIDGE NO. 1
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
NORTHWEST APPROACH
SOUTHEAST APPROACH
SIDE VIEW
FIGURE 3
s
100-YEAR FL )ODPLAIN
I ZONE C
ZONEB
ZONE B ZONE Al
? i LIMIT OF ?
- DETAILED
STUDY ? -'
ZONE C
t M r Z BN E\
M LR-2
LIMIT OF A GODEN BRID E
DETAILED ZONE B RM LR-3 Iboo
STUD; 0 ZOE ?
BN
1210 . . \ I
138 'ZONE B
BRIDGE NO. 1
ZONE Al I- ZONE
o ZONE B-
ZONE C ZONE All
RM LR 4 ZONE
B
ZONE C 1 ,
ONE ZONE B '
Z t
tl/ ?\\ ZONE Al 1 .4-ZONE C ., \
\\ (EL 138 / i BM
\
FLOODING- FLOODING EFFECTS 7p
I6?E Q EFFECTS FROM LITTLE RIVER O
rr==,, ° FROM
LITTLE ZONE A11
Trailer RIVER ZONBE (E L 138) '
Par
= J
ZONE B B-2535
l BRIDGE NO. 1
?M
R 8 .-,'•Z
ONE B CUMBERLAND COUNTY
RM LR-6
-ZONE A11 FIGURE 4
LR-7

o "` SiATF
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
July 1, 1993
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge replacement, Bridge No. 1 over Little River,
Cumberland County, Federal-aid Project BRSTP-
1600(4), State No. 8.2441201, B-2535, ER 93-
9039
Dear Mr. Graf:
?G?I V
gL 0 6.1993 _0
??EN'v7RRON-t?r'S
Thank you for your letter of June 11, 1993, concerning the above project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerel ,
r
David Brook
Deputy State Historic
DB:slw
cc: vl[ J. Ward
T. Padgett
k4_11-
Preservation Officer
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr.. Director
Q0471

•
North Carolina Department,of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
January 27, 1993
Tom McCloskey
William G. Daniel and Associates, PA
1150 Southeast Maynard Road, Suite 100
Cary, NC 27511
Re: Replacement of Bridge No. 1 on SR 1600 over
Little Creek, Cumberland County, B-2535, ER 93-
8014
Dear Mr. McCloskey:
Division or Archives =1 History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of January 5, 1993, concerning the above project. We
note that bridge B-2535 is less than fifty years of age.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. if you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: L. J. Ward
B. Church
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
to 5G1TE o
V
'? QNM ?•
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
December 17, 1992
Mr. Tom McCloskey
William G. Daniel & Associates, PA
1150 Southeast Maynard Road
Suite 100
Cary, NC 27511
Re: Replacement of Bridge No. 1 on SR 1600 over Little River,
Cumberland County, B-2535, ER 93-7848
Dear Mr. McCloskey:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of December 1, 1992, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of historical or architectural
importance located within the planning area. However, since a comprehensive historical
architectural inventory of Cumberland County has never been conducted, there may be structures of
which we are unaware located within the planning area.
We recommend that an architectural historian survey the area of potential effect and report the
findings to us. Please submit photographs of all structures over fifty years of age, keyed to a map,
along with a location description. Also include a brief statement about the structure's history and
explain which National Register criteria it does or does not meet. If there are no structures over
fifty years of age in the area of potential effect, please notify us in writing.
Because of the location and topographic situation of the proposed project area, it is unlikely that any
archaeological sites which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places
will be affected by the proposed construction. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section
106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-
4763.
Sin rely, David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: L. J. Ward
B. Church
109 EastJones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
a
vd ?5CA
?9 t
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Recreation
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor Dr. Philip K. McKnelly
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary December 16, 1992 Director
Mr. Gary Blank
813 Lake Boone Trail
Raleigh, NC 27607
SUBJECT: Records of Concern at Bridge Crossings Over the Little
River, Cumberland and Harnett Counties
Dear Mr. Blank:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program has two specific
records of concern in the vicinity of the designated bridge
crossings. Near SR 1609 over the Little River there is a known
population of Pickering's dawnflower (Stylisma pickeringii var.
pickeringii), a state Endangered and federal Candidate species.
Although this species usually occurs in xeric sandhill communities,
it is also known from several relatively mesic flats along the
Little River. On the east side of the river near SR 1600, we have
a record of a significant Mesic Pine Flatwoods natural community.
We cannot be sure that no other rare species occur at the
designated bridge crossings, since it is not clear from Natural
Heritage Program records how thoroughly these two areas have been
surveyed for rare species. Numerous rare species, including
federally listed species, are known to occur from Cumberland and
Harnett counties. I am therefore enclosing a list of rare species
that are known to occur in these two counties. This list can be
used as a reference guide, if your project requires more detailed
analysis of these two bridge crossings. If habitat for any of
these species occurs in the area, then that species also might be
found there.
Please contact me at 919-733-7701 or at the address given below if
you have any questions or require further information.
Sincerely,
5§?
Ann W. Kelly
Natural Heritage Program
Enclosures
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affinnative Action Employer
f
0
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
December 11, 1992
Gary B. Blank
813 Lake Boone Trail
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Dear Mr. Blank:
¦
TAKING
AMMSKA ?
This is in response to your letter of November 23, 1992,
requesting verification of Federally-listed endangered and
threatened species known to occur in Brunswick, Columbus,
Cumberland and Northhampton Counties.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurs with the species
you have listed for Columbus, Cumberland and Northhampton
Counties. However, enclosed you will find the most recent
list of Federally-listed species known to occur in Brunswick
County.
We appreciate your interest in endangered species and if you
have any questions, please contact Ms. Kate Looney of this
office.
Sincerely,
Debbie Mignog
Acting Supervisor