19940839 Ver 1_Complete File_19940908

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkkNSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201

q yK-59
R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
SECRETARY
September 6, 1994
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
Subject: Harnett County, Replacement of Bridge No. 55
over Upper Little River, Federal Aid Project
No. BRS-4795(1), State Project No. 8.2450701,
TIP No. B-2567.
Attached for your i rmation are three copies of
the project planning ort' or the subject project.
The project is bein process d by the Federal Highway
Administration as . "Catego ical Exclusion" in
accordance with 2 CFR 77 .115(b). Therefore, we do not
anticipate requesti individual permit but propose
to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with
33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November 22, 1991,
by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section
330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification 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 Environmental Management,
for their review.
9
-- w
If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call Mr. Doug Huggett at 733-3141.
Sincerely,
D .
C?
B. 0_ 'nn, PE
Assistant Branch Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
BJO/dvh
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Ernie Jahnke, COE-Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DEM
Mr. John Parker, NCDEHNR, DCM
w/out attachment
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, PE, Highway Design Branch
Mr. A.L. Hankins, PE, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith Jr., PE, Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, Roadway Design Unit
Mr. W.F. Rosser, PE, Division 6 Engineer
Ms. Julie Hunkins, PE, Planning and Environmental Branch
Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and Environmental Branch
1
Harnett County
Bridge No. 55 on SR 1130
Over Upper Little River
Federal Aid Project BRS-4795(1)
State Project 8.2450701
T.I.P. I.D. No. B-2567
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
8 12 9¢ (--
Date H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
-?r Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
ra, E.
G
Date Ni *?s
tOivision Administrator, FHWA
?/
Harnett County
Bridge No. 55 on SR 1130
Over Upper Little River
Federal Aid Project BRS-4795(1)
State Project 8.2450701
T.I.P. I.D. No. B-2567
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
August, 1994
Documentation Prepared in
Planning and Environmental Branch By:
oCARO(/
F?SSION%
Ju 'e Hunkins, P. E.
P ject Planning Engineer _ SEAL c
19496
%
Wayne lliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
s/? 1
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
Harnett County
Bridge No. 55 on SR 1130
Over Upper Little River
Federal Aid Project BRS-4795(1)
State Project 8.2450701
T.I.P. I.D. No. B-2567
Bridge No. 55 is included in the current Transportation
Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial
impacts are anticipated. The project has been classified as
exclusion."
Improvement
environmental
a "categorical
I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 55 should be replaced at its existing location as shown by
Recommended Alternate 1 in Figure 2. The recommended structure is a bridge
190 feet long and 28 feet wide. This alternate will provide a 22-foot
travelway across the structure with three feet of lateral clearance on each
side.
Minor improvements to the existing approaches will be necessary for a
distance of about 100 feet on each side of the bridge. The approach roadway
should consist of a 22-foot travelway with 6-foot grassed shoulders. The
roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the
existing grade at this location.
Traffic should be detoured along existing secondary roads during the
construction period, as shown in Figure 1.
Estimated cost, based on current prices, is $ 467,000. The estimated
cost of construction and right of way of the project, as shown in the
1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program, is $ 683,000.
II. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS

All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid and
minimize environmental impacts. Approximately 0.09 acre of wetlands will be
disrupted by implementation of this project.
Best Management Practices for protection of surface waters will be
strictly enforced to ensure the biological integrity of the water bodies
impacted by this project. Measures will be taken to reduce the amount of
probable increased concentrations of toxic compounds (gasoline, oil, etc.) in
the stream coming from construction related machinery and road paving
activities.
Although there does not appear to be evidence of significant scour
potential at this crossing, the erosive potential associated with the sharp
curve in the river at this crossing warrants that careful design
consideration be given to protecting the banks from erosion and scour.
2
In order to complete construction of the project during a single
construction season, the project should be let to contract between November
and March. This will enable the road closure time to be kept to a minimum
(about seven months) such that the traveling public will be inconvenienced as
little as possible. Additionally, road closure during the summer months when
school is not in session will minimize inconvenience to school buses.
A Section 404 permit and Division of Environmental Management (DEM)
Section 401 Water Quality General Certification will be required prior to
project construction.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1130 is classified as a rural minor collector in the Statewide
Functional Classification System and is not a part of the Federal-Aid System.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1130 has an 18-foot pavement with
10-foot to 12-foot shoulders (see Figure 3). The existing bridge is on a
tangent alignment with the south approach. The north approach to the bridge
consists of a curve of about eight degrees.
The current traffic volume of 750 VPD is expected to increase to 1400
VPD by the year 2017. The projected volume includes 1% truck-tractor
semi-trailer (TTST) and 2% dual-tired vehicles (DTT).
The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was constructed in 1964. The
existing bridge consists of timber floor on steel I-beams with timber joists
supported by timber piles and caps with timber bulkhead-type abutments.
The overall length of this 8-span bridge is 160 feet and provides a
clear roadway width of 19.2 feet. The posted weight limit is 11 tons for
single vehicles and 15 tons for trucks with trailers. A narrow bridge sign
is posted on the south approach of the bridge.
Bridge No. 55 has a sufficiency rating of 7.9 compared to a rating of
100 for a new structure. The estimated remaining life of the existing bridge
is 2 years.
The speed limit is statutory 55 MPH.
No accidents were reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 55 during the
period from January, 1990 to January, 1993.
Four school buses travel across the studied bridge daily.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Three methods of replacing Bridge No. 55 were studied. Each of the
alternates studied involves a replacement structure 190 feet long and 28 feet
wide. This structure width will accommodate a 22-foot travelway across the
structure with three feet of lateral clearance on each side. The approach
roadway will consist of 22 feet of pavement with 6-foot grassed shoulders.

r
3
The alternates studied, shown in Figure 2, are as follows:
Alternate 1 (Recommended) - replace the bridge at its present location.
Approximately 100 feet of approach roadway work is required. The design
speed is about 55 MPH. Traffic is to be detoured along existing roads,
as shown in Figure 1.
Alternate 2 - replace the bridge at its existing location. The approach
roadway work in conjunction with this alternate extends about 500 feet
north and 500 feet south of the new structure. The design speed would
be about 55 MPH. Traffic would be maintained during construction by
provision of a temporary 100-foot long bridge located immediately east
(downstream) of the existing bridge.
Alternate 3 - replace the structure on new location approximately 60 feet
east of the existing bridge. This alternate would involve approximately
1500 feet of new approach roadway. Traffic would be maintained on the
existing structure during the construction period. The design speed
would be about 50 MPH.
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the
bridge. This is not prudent due to the traffic service provided by SR 1130.
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
Estimated costs of the alternatives studied are as follows:
Recommended
Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3

Structure $ 319,000 $ 319,000 $ 319,000
Roadway Approaches 58,000 101,000 276,000
Detour Structure & -- 275,000 --
Approaches
Structure Removal 19,000 19,000 19,000
Engineering & 54,000 111,000 86,000
Contingencies
Right-of-Way, 17,000 27,000 23,000
Utilities
Total $ 467,000 $ 852,000 $ 723,000
4
VI. TRAFFIC DETOUR
The division engineer concurs that traffic can be detoured on existing
roads during the construction period, as shown in Figure 1. The average
vehicle will be required to travel an additional 4.4 miles. A seven-month
road closure period is anticipated.
Maintaining traffic on-site is estimated to cost an additional $ 256,000 ,
and is not justifiable due to the excessive cost of the on-site detour and
the availability of a suitable detour route. The detour roadway and bridges
are adequate to accommodate affected traffic during the construction period.
A road user analysis (based on 800 VPD and an average of 4.4 miles of
indirectional travel) indicates the cost of additional travel would be
approximately $ 222,000 during the seven-month construction period. The
estimated cost of maintaining traffic on-site during construction is
$ 256,000, resulting in a benefit-cost ratio of 0.9. This ratio indicates
that detouring traffic.along secondary roads is economically justifiable.
The Harnett County School Bus Supervisor indicates road closure of
SR 1130 is tolerable. However, road closure should occur during the summer
months when school is not in session to minimize inconvenience to school
buses. ,
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 55 should be replaced at its existing location with a new
structure having a length of approximately 190 feet, as shown by Recommended
Alternate 1 in Figure 2.
Minor improvements to the existing approaches will be necessary for a
distance of about 100 feet on each side of the bridge. A 22-foot travelway
with 6-foot grassed shoulders will be provided on the approaches.
A 28-foot clear roadway width is recommended on the replacement
structure in accordance with current Bridge Policy. This will provide a
22-foot travelway across the structure with three feet of lateral clearance
on each side.
Based on preliminary studies, the Hydraulics Unit recommends the new
structure should have a length of approximately 190 feet. The new bridge
grade should be essentially the same as that of the existing bridge, except
the north end of the new bridge and the north roadway approach grade should
be raised slightly to accommodate a minimum gradient of 0.3% along the bridge
to ensure positive drainage of the deck. The length and height may be
increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined
by further hydrological analysis and hydraulic design.
Traffic will be detoured on existing roads during the seven-month
construction period, as shown in Figure 1.
The division engineer concurs with the recommendation of Alternate 1.
5
VIII. 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 "categorical exclusion" due to its
limited scope and insignificant environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have a substantial 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 effect on families or communities is anticipated.
Right-of-way acquisition will be limited.
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.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife
and waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance in the
vicinity of the project.
The project is 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 on or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given the
opportunity to comment.
Photographs, maps, and information about the area of potential effect
were provided by the North Carolina Department of Transportation and reviewed
with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). There are no historic
structures within the area of potential effect, and the SHPO recommended that
no historic architectural survey be conducted for this project.
Correspondence from the SHPO is included as Attachment 1.
An archaeological survey was conducted for this bridge replacement
project to locate and assess any significant archaeological remains that
could be damaged or destroyed. No historic or prehistoric cultural resources
were discovered. The results of the archaeological survey indicate the
project is unlikely to encounter any archaeological sites that are eligible
for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The SHPO concurs
that no further archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with
this project since the project will not involve significant archaeological
resources. Correspondence from the SHPO regarding the archaeological aspects
of the project is included as Attachment 2.
6
The structure is to be replaced at the existing location. Therefore,
the project is exempt from the Farmland Protection Policy Act.
The proposed project occurs in south-central Harnett County,
approximately 3 miles south of Lillington. The project is located in a
forest dominated rural setting. Elevation of the project area is 200 feet
above mean sea level.
Harnett County is in the Upper Coastal Plain Physiographic Province.
The topography of the area is characterized as gently sloping, with broad
nearly level floodplains. This region is a transition zone between the
Piedmont and Coastal Plain. The soils of this area reflect this transition,
with parent material formed from exposed felsic crystalline and slate belt
rock, overlain with fluvial and marine sediments. The soils of the plains of
the project area are well drained fine sandy loams of the Altavista series.
The slopes leading to the stream have well drained soils of the Louisa fine
sandy loam and Pacolet fine sandy loam Series, while the soils of the
floodplain are generally poorly drained loams of the hydric Wehadkee Series.
Upper Little River is in the Cape Fear River system, originating
approximately 17 miles to the northwest in Lee County and flowing in a
general eastward direction into the Cape Fear River near Erwin, 12 miles
downstream of project crossing.
Stream width is approximately 60 feet at the project crossing. Depth is
highly variable, ranging from five feet just below the bridge, down to six
inches over gravel beds just upstream of the bridge. The substrate is a
mixture of coarse sand and gravel, occasionally overlain with cobble.
The waters of the Upper Little River carry the Best Usage Classification
of C as assigned by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources (DEHNR), 1993. Class C designates waters suitable for
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation and agriculture. No waters classified as High Quality Waters
(HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS-I, or WS-II, occur within one
mile of the project area.
r
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) assesses water
quality by sampling for selected benthic Macroinvertebrate organisms. The
species richness and overall biomass are reflections of water quality. Two
MAN survey stations are located on Upper Little River, approximately ten
miles upstream and eight miles downstream of project crossing respectively.
The upstream location was given an "Excellent" biodiversity rating in
November 1991 and most recently a "Good-Fair" rating in August 1993. The
downstream location has ranged from "Excellent" in July, 1991 to "Good" in
August, 1993.
The DEM National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) report
lists two permitted discharge sources into Upper Little River four and six
miles downstream of the project site. These discharges are not known to
effect the water quality at the project site. No permitted discharges are
listed upstream near the crossing.
7
Potential impacts to water resources include decreases of dissolved
oxygen and changes in temperature. These impacts are frequently due to
removal of the streamside canopy and removal/burial of aquatic vegetation.
Sedimentation and substrate disturbance occurring during construction can
significantly reduce water clarity.
M
If stream channel relocation is required and if the stream relocation is
r greater than 100 feet in length or greater than 50 feet to one side,
consultation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission will be required, per the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, as amended (16 USC 661-6674). Relocated streams will be
designed to have similar characteristics (depth, width, and substrate) as the
original stream. This also includes re-establishment of streamside
vegetation.
Three distinct biotic community types were identified in the project
impact zone: maintained, steep mesic hardwood slope, and bottomland hardwood
communities. However, some degree of overlap exists between communities,
particularly with the faunal components. Numerous terrestrial animals are
highly adaptive and populate a variety of habitats; therefore, many of the
species discussed below may occur in all of the community types described.
Maintained communities are land parcels in which the vegetation is kept
in a low-growing, non-successional state. These communities include the
existing roadside and cleared powerline corridor east of the roadway. The
narrow roadside shoulder has a limited amount of vegetative growth, which is
primarily fescues Festuca spp.), along with dandelion (Taraxacum
officinale), chickweed Stellaria media), and wild onion Allium canadense).
The area extending from the maintained community into the forest and
powerline corridor is less maintained, supporting rank vegetative growth,
especially at the woodland border. Species present include sheep-sorrel
Rumex acetosella), winged sumac Rhus copallina), tag alder Alnus
serrulata), trumpet creeper (Cam psis radicans , nightshade Solanum spp.),
pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), poison ivy, blackberry Rubus sp.), and
Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera japonica). Saplings of "weedy hardwoods such
as sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple Acer rubrum , and sourwood
fOxydendrum arboreum are also present.
The limited roadside area does not likely support much of a resident
faunal assemblage. Small animals, such as house mouse Mus musculis and
five-lined skink Eumeces fasciatus), are some of the more common species to
inhabit this type of habitat; however, they are abundant in several other
habitat types as well. Birds, such as rufous-sided towhee Pi ilo
erythrophthalmus), white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis) and grey
catbird (Dumetella carolinensis), are some species which are found in dense
cover, nesting close to the ground. The dense vegetative growth also offers
foraging opportunity for several species residing in the adjacent forest.
Roadways also become travel corridors for many animal species. Other
species take advantage of this in a variety of ways. Predatory birds, such
as loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus), red-tailed hawk Buteo
jamaciensis), and other similar birds, prey on a wide variety of small
animals exposed during their migrations across the roadway. Scavengers and
8
opportunistic feeders, such as the common crow Corvus brachyrhynchos),
turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), raccoon (Procyon lotor , and Virginia
opossum Didel his virginiana), take advantage of the large amount of carrion
associated with roadkills. Often these species become roadkills themselves.
Occurring on a steep slope, grading towards Upper Little River, the
steep mesic hardwood slope community has a very diverse vegetative component.
No canopy species is particularly dominant on this slope, which contains
species associated with mesic and dry habitats. White oak uercus alba ,
black oak (Q. velutina , water oak JL. ni ra , black walnut Ju lans ni ra ,
American beech Fa us grandiflolia), and sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua)
comprise the fairly dense canopy. Mountain laurel Kalmia latifolia) is the
most abundant shrub species, and heartleaf (Hexastylis sp.) and pipsissewa
(Chimaphila maculata are the most common herbs. Prevalent vine species
include grape Vitis spp.), green brier Smilax spp.), crossvine
(Anisostichus capreolata), trumpet creeper (Cam psis radicans , and poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans .
The majority of this habitat type occurs west of the roadway, and will
receive minimal impacts. Canopy dwelling species comprise the majority of
the faunal assemblage of this community. Because of the steep terrain,
ground dwelling species are expected to be few. Tufted titmouse Parus
bicolor), Carolina chickadee (P. caroliniensis), red-bellied woodpecker
(Melanerpes carolinus), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata , and grey squirrel
Sciurus carolinensis) were observed to be abundant in this community. Other
species found in the bottomland forest may also occur in this habitat.
Another community in the project area is bottomland hardwood forest.
Although a large amount of the floodplain associated with the Upper Little
River is in a relatively undisturbed forested state, most of the area to be
impacted by this project retains little of the original community
characteristics as a result of previous disturbances. The majority of the
floodplain is located adjacent to the north bank of the river and is
characterized as broad, relatively flat, containing several depressions
(ephemeral pools).
The canopy of this community is dominated by a number of bottomland
oaks, including willow oak uercus hellos , water oak (Q. ni ra , chestnut
oak (Q. michauxii), along with red maple, black walnut, sweetgum, and
ironwood Car inus caroliniana). Ironwood, pawpaw Asimina triloba ,
American holly Ilex o aca , and possumhaw (I. decidua comprise the
subcanopy. The herb layer is sparsely populated with partridge berry
(Mitchella re ens , sedge Carex sp.), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica),
and violet Viola sp.). Vines, including poison ivy, grape Vitis
rotundifolia), and green brier Smilax rotundifolia) are prevalent.
Birds are the most prominent and conspicuous group of vertebrates found
in the forest. Wood boring and defoliating insects are abundant and are
consumed by birds, such as downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens),
yellow-bellied sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius , pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus
ileatus , blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea , yellow-throated
warbler (Dendrocia dominica , white-breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis),
swamp sparrow (Melospiza georgiana), prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria
citrea , northern parula Parula americana), and wood thrush (Hylocichla
mustelina). The forest contains many large mast-producing trees. Other
9
fruits and seeds are also plentiful and are consumed by these species, as
well as tufted titmouse Parus bicolor), solitary vireo Vireo solitarius),
and northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis).
The predatory barred owl Strix varia inhabits wet bottomland forests,
nesting in tree cavities and hunting from tree limbs. Small mammals, frogs,
insects and birds are the primary prey items. Piscivorous birds, such as
great blue heron Ardea herodias , green heron (Butorides striatus , and
belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alc on , may be an important component of the
forest and aquatic community. Frogs, crustaceans and small invertebrates
also constitute a major portion of these species' diets. Forest edges near
clearings, such as roadways and fields, are preferred nesting sites for the
red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus and scarlet tanager Piran a olivacea .
Ephemeral pools formed by floodplain depressions are utilized as
breeding pools for species, such as spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculata ,
southern cricket frog Acris r llus , spring peeper H la crucifer), and
many other amphibians. Marbled (Ambystoma opaca) and southern dusky
salamanders (Desmognathus auriculatus) are also found in floodplain habitats;
however, they lay their eggs in damp soil, or rotting logs rather than in
pools. The slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosus) occurs in the less
frequently flooded areas of this community. This wide ranging species occurs
in a variety of habitats. Populations of many amphibians are in decline, for
a variety of reasons, including habitat loss and degradation, as well as
hydrological and climatological changes.
Mammals such as raccoon (Procyon lotor), golden mouse (Ochrotomys
nuttalli , and southeastern shrew Sorex longirostris) occur in a wide
variety of habitats but are most abundant in forested areas near water, as
are the eastern ribbon snake (Thamnophis sauritus and ringneck snake
(Diadophis punctatus), which were found under logs in the dry floodplain.
The aquatic community is also present in the project area. Research has
shown that a large amount of food chain energy of stream communities is
derived from allochthonous (produced outside of stream ecosystem) sources in
the form of terrestrial detritus. Rocks, fallen debris (logs, sticks etc),
and low velocity areas in the stream trap or retain detritus within the
stream. The detritus is then decomposed by heterotrophic microorganisms,
such as bacteria, and consumed by macroinvertebrates, such as aquatic
insects. Decomposers and primary consumers are, in turn, consumed by larger
organisms. The amount of allochthonous energy input within a stream varies
seasonally and is dependent on the extent of streamside vegetation.
Autochthonous (produced within the stream ecosystem) energy sources
include planktonic and benthic micro-and-macro algae, as well as aquatic
vascular vegetation. Aquatic vegetation is present in some stretches of this
stream. Species present include smartweed (Polygonum sp.), pond ]illy Nu har
luteum , and quillwort Isoetes sp.).
Aquatic invertebrates are a major component of stream ecosystems, as
primary and secondary consumers and as prey items for organisms higher in the
food chain. Two species of freshwater mussels (Unionidae) are common in the
stream. These are Elliptio complanata and E. congara. Aquatic insects
10
observed include whirligig beetle G rinus limbatus and common backswimmer
(Notonecta undulata . These, along with larval forms of other insects,
including mayflies (Ephemeroptera), stoneflys (Plecoptera), and dragonflys
Odonata , provide a significant food source for fish, amphibians and
reptiles of this community.
Four fish species, pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus), green sunfish
Le omis cyanellus), tesselated darter (Etheostoma olmstedii), and shiner
Notro is sp.), were captured during stream survey. Other species likely to
be present in Upper Little River include yellow bullhead (Ictalurus natalis ,
largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), American eel (Anguilla rostrata ,
and pumpkinseed Le omis ibbosus .
Various reptiles and amphibians are major components of the aquatic
ecosystem, including pickeral frog Rana palustris), bullfrog
catesbeiana), northern watersnake Nerodia si edon , snapping turtle
Chel dra serpentina), and yellowbelly slider (Chr_ysemys scri to . Most of
these species are largely aquatic but may venture out of the water to bask,
feed, or travel to other habitats.
Project construction will result in clearing and degradation of portions
of the three terrestrial community types described. The estimated loss to
these communities by construction of Recommended Alternate 1 is listed in the
table below. It should be noted that estimated impacts were derived using
the entire proposed right of way (80-foot impact width). Project
construction often does not require the entire right of way and, therefore,
actual impacts may be considerably less.
TERRESTRIAL IMPACTS
Biotic Community
Steep Mesic Hardwood Slope
Bottomland Hardwood
Maintained
TOTAL
Approximate Impact
0.3 acre
0.4 acre
0.8 acre
1.5 acres
The plant communities found along the project alignment serve as
shelter, nesting and foraging habitat for numerous species of wildlife. Loss
of habitat is likely to reduce the number of faunal organisms, and
concentrate them into a smaller area, which causes some species to become
more susceptible to disease, predation, and starvation.
Individual mortalities during construction, are likely to occur to
animals closely associated with the ground (snakes, small mammals, etc.).
Mobile species will be displaced during construction activity. These animals
may return to the area following construction; however, the amount of
11
forested habitat, will be reduced even further. Replacement of the bridge at
is existing location will disrupt the least amount of terrestrial community
of all of the alternates studied.
Anticipated impacts to the Upper Little River stream community can be
attributed to construction-related habitat disturbance and sedimentation.
The aquatic environment serves as a major food source for many terrestrial
organisms such as raccoons, various species of snakes, birds, turtles and
amphibians. It also serves as a means of predator avoidance for amphibians
(frogs and salamanders), reptiles (snakes and turtles), and mammals (muskrat
and mink).
Benthic non-mobile organisms, such as filter and deposit feeders, and
macro-and-micro alga, are particularly sensitive to construction activities
such as dredging, filling, pile driving operations, and slope stabilization.
These construction activities physically disturb the substrate, resulting in
loss of sessile benthic organisms. Many of these aquatic organisms are slow
to recover, or repopulate an area because they require a stabilized substrate
for attachment. Substrate stability may take a long time to develop;
therefore, changes in community composition may occur.
Populations of photosynthetic species, the primary producers in the food
chain, can be greatly effected by siltation. The increased amount of
suspended particles in the water column reduces the photosynthetic ability by
absorbing available light. Clogging of feeding apparati of suspension
feeders and burial of newly settled larvae of these organisms are other
effects of siltation. These species are often primary consumers in the food
chain and are a major step in the aquatic food web. Impacts to these
organisms may directly effect organisms higher in the food chain, such as
fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals.
Mobile aquatic organisms may escape some of the effects of siltation;
however, gills of fish, crustaceans and larval amphibian and insect forms can
become clogged and dysfunctional as a result of sedimentation. Spawning
habitats for these mobile species may become filled with sediment,
diminishing reproductive success and inevitably reducing populations.
Habitat disturbance and sedimentation are extremely detrimental to
aquatic ecosystems. Best Management Practices for protection of surface
waters, will be strictly enforced to ensure the biological integrity of the
water bodies impacted by this project. Measures will be taken to reduce the
amount of probable increased concentrations of toxic compounds (gasoline,
oil, etc.) in the stream coming from construction related machinery and road
paving activities.
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of
the United States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3, in accordance with provisions
of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S. C. 1344). Portions of the
Bottomland Hardwood Forest qualify as jurisdictional wetlands. These are
associated with the overflow floodplain of the Upper Little River. These
wetlands are classified as Palustrine Forested, Broad-leaved Deciduous,
Temporarily Flooded (PFOIA) as defined by Cowardin et al. (1979). Wetland
impacts are estimated to be 0.09 acre for Recommended Alternate 1. The other
alternates studied in conjunction with this project impact more wetlands than
the recommended alternate.
12
Impacts to Waters of the United States fall under the jurisdiction of
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). A Nationwide permit 33 CFR 330.5
(A)23, for impacts to surface waters of Upper Little River,'is likely to be
applicable. This permit authorizes activities undertaken, assisted,
authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or in part, by another
Federal agency or department. That agency or department has determined that
the activity is categorically excluded from environmental documentation,
because it will neither individually or cumulatively have a significant d
environmental effect.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401
(1665) Water Quality General Certification is also required, prior to
issuance of the Nationwide permit.
Projects authorized under Nationwide Permits usually do not require
compensatory mitigation according to the 1989 Memorandum Agreement between
the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army.
Federal law requires that any action, which has the potential to
jeopardize the continued existence of any species classified as federally
protected, is subject to review by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or
the National Marine Fisheries Service under the provisions of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. Rare species receive additional
protection under separate state statutes. In North Carolina protection of
plant species falls under N.C. General statutes (G.S.) 106-202.12 to
106-202.19 of 1979. Wildlife protection falls under G.S. 113-331 to 113-337.
of 1987.
Plants and Animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are
protected under provisions of section 7 and section 9 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of March 30, 1994 the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service lists two Endangered species, the red-cockaded woodpecker
Picoides borealis and the Cape Fear shiner Notro is mekistocholas) for
Harnett County. A brief description of these species characteristics and
habitat requirements is provided, along with a biological conclusion which
addresses the potential impacts to these species from the proposed project.
The Cape Fear Shiner Notro is mekistocholas) was listed on
September 26, 1987. The Cape Fear shiner has the most limited range of all
Notropis species, and is restricted to the Cape Fear River basin, near the
fall line. The Cape Fear shiner is a small, moderately stocky minnow that
rarely exceeds 5 centimeters in length. Its body is pale silvery yellow,
with a black band running along its sides. The fins are yellowish and .
somewhat pointed. The upperlip is black and the lower lip has a black bar
along its margin. It is easily distinguished from other similar species by
having an elongated digestive tract to accommodate its diet of plant
material. Cape Fear shiner habitat occurs in large streams and small to
medium sized rivers. Preferred habitat is wide shallow sections of streams,
with gravel, cobble, or boulder substrates. It is most often observed
inhabiting slow pools, riffles, and slow runs associated with water willow
beds. Juveniles can be found inhabiting slack-water, among large rock
outcrops and in flooded side channels and pools. The Upper Little River does
not offer suitable habitat for this species. Therefore, construction of this
project will not adversely impact this species.
13
The red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis was listed on
October 13, 1970. The adult red cockaded woodpecker's (RCW) plumage is
entirely black and white except for small red streaks on the sides of the
nape in the male. The back is black and white with horizontal stripes
and the breast and underside are white with streaked flanks. There is a
large white cheek patch surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat. RCW's
use open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf pine for
foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least 50%
pine. These birds nest exclusively in trees that are > 60 years old and are
contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age. The foraging area of
the RCW can be as large as 500 acres, and this acreage must be contiguous
with suitable nesting sites. These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living
pine trees and usually in trees that are infected with the fungus that causes
red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies from 12 to 100 feet
above the ground and average 30 to 50 feet high. They can be identified by a
large incrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree, which is referred
to as "candle-sticking". This is arguably used as a defense against possible
predators. A clan of woodpeckers usually consists of one breeding pair and
the offspring from previous years. The eggs are laid in April, May, and June
and hatch 38 days later. Clutch size is from 3-5 eggs. All members of the
clan share in raising the young. RCWs feed mainly on insects but may feed on
seasonal wild fruits. No pine dominated stands will be impacted by the
proposed project. Therefore, construction of this project will have no
effect on the red-cockaded woodpecker.
There are a total of thirteen federal candidate (C2) species listed for
Harnett County (see table below). Candidate 2 (C2) species are defined as
taxa for which there is some evidence of vulnerability, but for which there
are not enough data to warrant a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, or Proposed Threatened at this time. The North Carolina status
of these Federal Candidate species is also listed in the table below. Plants
or animals with state designations of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or
Special Concern (SC) are given protection by the State Endangered Species Act
and the N. C. Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979, administered and
enforced by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the North
Carolina Department of Agriculture respectively. Species with state
designations of Candidate (C), Significantly Rare (SR) and Watch List (W) are
not protected under state laws, but there is evidence of declining
populations.
These species are mentioned here for information purposes in the event
` that they become protected in the future. Specific surveys for these species
were not conducted during site visits, nor were any of them observed during
field reconnaissance.
14
Federal Candidate Species Harnett County
NC
Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Status
Lampsilis cariosa
Amorpha georgiana georgiana
Astragalus michauxii
Eupatorium resinosum
Nestronia umbellula
Oxypolis ternata
Parnassia caroliniana
Parthenium radfordii
Pyxidanthera barbulata
var. brevifolia
Rudbeckia heliopsidis
Solidago verna
Stylisma pickeringii
var. pickeringii
Tofieldia lg abra
yellow lampmussel N T
Georgia leadplant N E
sandhills milkvetch N C
pine barrens boneset N C
nestronia Y SR
savanna cowbane N W
Carolina grass-of-
parnassus N E
wavyleaf wild quinine N W
Well's sandhill
pixie moss N E
sun-facing coneflower N E
spring-flowering
goldenrod N E
Pickering's
morning glory Y E
smooth bog asphodel N C
NC Status: . T and E denote Threatened and Endangered, respectively.
C, SR, and W denote Candidate, Significantly Rare, and Watch, which are not
Protected by state laws.
A search of the NC-NHP data base of rare plants and animals resulted in
no records of state or federally protected species in the project area.
This project is located in the Sandhills Air Quality Region. The
ambient air quality for Harnett County has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This project is
not anticipated to create any adverse effect on air quality of this
attainment area.
This 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 and laws and regulations of the North Carolina State
Implementation Plans for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
Harnett 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. This location is beyond the limit of the detailed flood study;
therefore, no regulatory floodway has been established in this area. The
floodplain is rural and wooded in the vicinity of the project, and the
proposed bridge replacement will not have a detrimental effect on the
existing floodplain.
f
15
Existing drainage patterns and groundwater will not be affected by the
proposed bridge replacement. Although there does not appear to be evidence
of significant scour potential with the sharp curve in the river at this
crossing warrants that careful design consideration be given to protecting
the banks from erosion scour. Aside from that, standard erosion and
sedimentation control devices and measures should be adequate, provided they
are properly installed and maintained.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no serious
adverse environmental effects will result from implementation of the project.
JH/plr

a
1F
f
/ Duncan` 5, \
.Chalyheate Springs ?
/
Kiplin Z ngler t
aw , 9oR \\
dul g
121 19 5 Buies v
x Creel Coats `
Manners" +Ilington 27 6
Swann A R E 7 T Benson
i 2 f7 55
7 Olivia 17 7 7
e 2' P o y J\
y P neview Erwln 1DO 71-
>• 10 2 3 18 Bunnlevel 7
Johnsonville 3 Spout Springs 210 \ 17 ?i82
\ e?
?Manc?
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
- 3x57 1157 \
?y
_
1263
t
]?
12 65 6 1261 SI
Q .i
124. ? G
F'p f
?..

? 1I3l.1 257
l .B 1260 1239 125$ f

•a \ t
.
FAY _
? \. ]
Tex b 1x7
ton 1.2
? M-
.9 FA 1256 n
1 I]Ox: •D .I
1.5
A
jj i 79 47 1106 12
J 1.0 N
276 1291 1
'0 Fop.. 110
LI

M o

6 luart
1 'J a 1310
6bern LiQ<
1216
1275 . 1309

b
3x]7 3x78 ,J 1251 J
1219 I]II

Y;
. :o
- _ •
1j91 //' r'9
1x30 b 11 1229

1
? 2?9
?
t
N \ 1231
x]3 1217 1238 -- S . 1250 s
2 4 .2 1.229 27
1 B 1799
Q
?9 .8
?
Ix 9
•B? •1
Ixee y 1251 2'

210 1
1246 1133 1 1-51
'• I $ . ? l V. ? fl^' ? 7031
•J 1241
1244
1
.7

?

J 1

4
t~ 11 1
.2_ '?' 'J

t l_Q56

1231 .7 1215
_f 1230
?1
Vee?•? '

\ IM
a7
Mason Store
?` ,
29L2.
B
112$
?1 2
1 ,
I„ .a
FAS 29±7. ??-
?J
,127. J 707Q_ I.3 .L
BRIDGE NO_ 55 FAS 20V. FA5
t
t?
1.8 ? c
7 7
I1]. • 151
A.5 m
Cope
Fear s16
CAPE
7020
Harnett
32
I
1
0
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OP
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL,
BRANCH
HARNETT COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 55
ON SR 1130
OVER UPPER LITTLE RIVER
B-2567
0 miles 1 FIG. 1
B - 2567
HARNETT COUNTY
T
LOOKING NORTH ON
SR 1130 TOWARD
BRIDGE NO. 55
LOOKING SOUTH ON
SR 1130 TOWARD
BRIDGE NO. 55
SID` VIEW OF
BRIDGE NO. 55
FIGURE 3

I?
ij
i,
";
D
MASON
STORE ,
'o
jr
1129
O
ZONE A
??ee&
E A
.....:..::.........
PROJECT SITE
100-YEAR FL?
OODPLAIN
f?

FIGURE 4
J?
O
coo
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
July 8, 1992
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge No. 56 on SR 1130 over
Upper Little River, Harnett County,
B-2567, ER 92-8233
Dear Mr. Graf:
EI
Q'
JUL ' 10 1992
p DIVISION OF U
HIGHWAYS q0'
RESEARG?
On June 10, 1992, 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.
We are unable to assess the effects of the proposed bridge replacement upon
archaeological resources until specific information concerning the location of the
new bridge and detour structures is available. Please forward this information to
us as soon as possible so we can complete our review.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a
Categorical Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which ind'
addressed our concerns.
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
icates how NCDOT
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.
109 EastJones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
ATTACHMENT I
Nicholas L. Graf
July 8, 1992, Page 2
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
K. Houston
T. Padgett
+STATr
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
July 29, 1993
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge #55 on SR 1 130 over Upper Little
River, B-2567, Harnett County, ER 94-7069
Dear Mr. Graf:
waArj- ?o-ufq
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Q/CEI\
O
1 AUS 0 3 1993
1
Divis,,,q of 5
$1 NIGHwAyS
Thank you for your letter of July 13, 1993, transmitting the archaeological survey
report by Gerald F. Glover of North Carolina Department of Transportation
concerning the above project.
During the course of the survey no prehistoric or historic archaeological sites were
located within the project area. Due to the lack of cultural resources, Mr. Glover
has recommended that no further archaeological investigation be conducted in
connection with this project. We concur with this recommendation since this
project will not involve significant archaeological resources.
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
G. Glover
3
1993
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 rpfl
ATTACHMENT 2