19980603 Ver 1_Complete File_19980702

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. William Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27611
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
1 • •
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
October 1, 1998
Cumberland County
DWQ Project # 980603
T.I.P. No. B-2533
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to
impact 0.05 acres of wetlands or waters for the purpose of replacing Bridge No. 100 over Rockfish
Creek, as you described in your application dated September 10, 1998. This replaces the certification
issued July 10, 1998, and includes our approval for placement of a temporary work bridge. After
reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality
Certification Number 3127. This certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 23 when
the Corps of Engineers issues it. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits
before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control,
Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. This approval will expire
when the accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General
Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application except
as modified below. If you change your project, you must notify us and to send us a new application. If
the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter and is
thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in
the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H
.0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached
certification
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory
hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a
written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of
Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its
conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
to erely
eston H:Qd,
Jr
. P.E.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
Fayetteville DWQ Regional Office
Central Files 980603.doc
Division of Water Quality • Non-Discharge Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
A 174
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
July 10, 1998
Cumberland County
DWQ Project 980603
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. David Robinson
NC DOT
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Robinson:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to impact 0.05
acres of wetlands or waters for the purpose of replacing bridge 100 over Rockfish Creek, as you described in
your application dated July 2, 1998. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this impact is
covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3127. This Certification allows you to use
Nationwide Permit Number 23 when it is issued by the Corps of Engineers. In addition, you should get any
other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to)
Sediment and Erosion Control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations.
This approval will expire when the accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in
the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application except as
modified below. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new
application for a new certification. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this
Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total wetland
fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as
described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the
conditions listed in the attached certification.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing.
You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written
petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative
Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions are final and
binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Domey at 919-733-1786.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
Fayetteville DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Domey
Central Files
SiF e ly
on Howard, P.E.
980603.Itr
Division of Water Quality • Non-Discharge Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper

,.w AA7(o
C'tk' o " kl
q ?'eo' S'C?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
September 10, 1998
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers FM
Wilmington Field Office
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Mr. Dave Timpy
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
E. NORRIS TOLSON
SECRETARY
a a i V R I ?
SEP 161998 ,_
SUBJECT: Cumberland County, Replacement of Bridge No. 100 over the
Rockfish Creek, TIP No. B-2533, State Project No. 8.2441901, Federal
Aid Project No. BRSTP-11 15 (9), DWQ I. D. No. 980603.
On June 30, 1998, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) applied
for a Nationwide Permit No. 23 for the replacement of Bridge No. 100 over Rockfish
Creek in Cumberland County. At the time of that application, bridge No. 100 was to be
replaced at its existing location with a new bridge approximately 150 feet long. Traffic
was to be detoured onto SR 1112, NC 59, SR 1118, SR 1117, SR 1116 and SR 1119
during construction. Since that time, the recommended alternative has changed.
Alternative B with a temporary on-site detour east of the existing bridge, as described un
page 3 of the Categorical Exclusion, is now the recommended alternative.
The on-site detour was selected for several reasons. The off-site detour would impose a
hardship detour of 5.3 miles for the traveling public, including 650 students whose buses
travel the existing bridge. The off-site detour would direct approximately 4,100
additional vehicles per day through the Main Street area of the Town of Hope Mills as
well as the intersection of NC 59 and SR 1118 which currently carries 15,000 vehicles
per day. The intersection of NC 59 and Rockfish Road (23,000 vehicles per day) would
also increase by 4,100 vehicles. The off-site detour would create a tremendous burden on
the street system of the Town of Hope Mills. This could create a capacity gridlock and
an increased accident surge. Therefore, Alternative B with temporary detour 2 (east of
the existing bridge) is now the recommended alternative.

Construction of the proposed project will have approximately .05 acres of permanent
impact associated with approach work for the new bridge. The temporary on-site detour
will not impact jurisdictional wetlands and will span Rockfish Creek with a temporary
bridge. No federally protected species, High Quality Waters, Outstanding Resource
Waters, WS-I, or WS-II waters will be impacted.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical
Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate
requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued December 13. 1996, by the
Corps of Engineers., The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these
regulations will be-followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Water Quality Certification No. 3107 will apply to this
project. Therefore, we are also submitting a copy of this letter to the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Division of Water Quality, for their
review.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Lindsey
Riddick at [phone] ext. 315.
Sincerely,
i
William D. Gilmore, P. /,Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Attachments
cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, DWQ
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Whit Webb, P. E.. Program Development Branch
Mr. R. L. Hill, P. E., State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P. E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. W. S. Varnedoe, P. E., Division 06 Engineer
Mr. Randy Wise, P. E., Roadside Environmental
? „? Stitt n?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
September 10, 1998
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Mr. Dave Timpy
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Cumberland County, Replacement of Bridge No. 100 over the
Rockfish Creek, TIP No. B-2533. State Project No. 8.2441901. Federal
Aid Project No. BRSTP-1115 (9), DWQ 1. D. No. 980603.
On June 30, 1998, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) applied
for a Nationwide Permit No. 23 for the replacement of Bridge No. 100 over Rockfish
Creek in Cumberland County. At the time of that application, bridge No. 100 was to be
replaced at its existing location with a new bridge approximately 150 feet long. Traffic
was to be detoured onto SR 1112, NC 59, SR 1118, SR 1117, SR 1116 and SR 1119
during construction. Since that time, the recommended alternative has changed.
Alternative B with a temporary on-site detour east of the existing bridge, as described on
page 3 of the Categorical Exclusion, is now the recommended alternative.
The on-site detour was selected for several reasons. The off-site detour would impose a
hardship detour of 5.3 miles for the traveling public, including 650 students whose buses
travel the existing bridge. The off-site detour would direct approximately 4,100
additional vehicles per day through the Main Street area of the Town of Hope Mills as
well as the intersection of NC 59 and SR 1 118 which currently carries 15,000 vehicles
per day. The intersection of NC 59 and Rockfish Road (23,000 vehicles per day) would
also increase by 4,100 vehicles. The off-site detour would create a tremendous burden on
the street system of the Town of Hope Mills. This could create a capacity gridlock and
an increased accident surge. Therefore, Alternative B with temporary detour 2 (east of
the existing bridge) is now the recommended alternative.

Construction of the proposed project will have approximately .05 acres of permanent
impact associated with approach work for the new bridge. The temporary on-site detour
will not impact jurisdictional wetlands and will span Rockfish Creek with a temporary
bridge. No federally protected species, High Quality Waters, Outstanding Resource
Waters, WS-I, or WS-II waters will be impacted.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical
Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate
requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (13-23) issued December 13, 1996, by the
Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these
regulations will be followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Water Quality Certification No. 3107 will apply to this
project. Therefore, we are also submitting a copy of this letter to the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. for their
review.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Lindsey
Riddick at [phone] ext. 315.
Sincerely,
I 616-;z 1.1W1,'/'
William D. Gilmore, P. , Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Attachments
cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, DWQ
Mr. David Cox, NC WRC
Mr. Whit Webb, P. E., Program Development Branch
Mr. R. L. Hill, P. E., State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P. E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., State Roadway Design Engineer
-Mr. W. S. Varnedoe, P. E., Division 06 Engineer
Mr. Randy Wise, P. E., Roadside Environmental
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO September 21, 1998
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. 199603335, Nationwide Permit No. 23 (Approved Categori
B-2533, Bridge No. 100 over Rockfish Creek, Cumberland County, North.
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
), TIP
Reference your letter dated September 10, 1998, with an attached project planning
document that described the North Carolina Department of Transportation proposal to replace
Bridge No. 100 over Rockfish Creek, Cumberland County, North Carolina. The bridge will be
replaced at its existing location with a new bridge 150 feet in length. The roadway grade of the
new bridge will be approximately the same as the existing bridge. Construction of the new
bridge will permanently impact 0.05 acres of wetlands. A temporary on-site detour will be used
that will cross Rockfish creek on the east side of the existing bridge and will have no permanent
wetland impacts.
For the purposes of the Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program, the "December 13, 1996
Federal Register, Final Notice of Issuance, Reissuance, and Modification of Nationwide Permits
(61 FR 65874)" listed nationwide permits. Authorization, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, was provided for activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole or in part, by another
Federal agency or department where that agency or department has determined, pursuant to the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulation for Implementing the Procedural
Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR Part 1500 et seq.), that the
activity, work or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental documentation because
it is included within a category of actions which neither individually nor cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment, and the Office of the Chief of Engineers (ATTN:
CECW-OR) has been furnished notice of the agency's or department's application for the
categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination.
15 l?
I?n gEp 29?
k_j
Your work is authorized by this nationwide permit provided it is accomplished in strict
accordance with the enclosed conditions and provided you receive a Section 401 water quality
certification from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). You should contact
Mr. John Dorney, telephone [phone], regarding water quality certification. This
nationwide permit does not relieve you of the responsibility to obtain other required State or
local approval.
This verification will be valid until the nationwide permit is modified, reissued or revoked,
which will occur by February 11, 2002. It is incumbent upon you to remain informed of changes
to the nationwide permits, which will be announced by public notice when they occur. If you
commence, or are under contract to commence, this activity before the date the nationwide
permit is modified or revoked, you will have twelve months from the date of the modification or
revocation to complete the activity under the present terms and conditions of this nationwide
permit.
We have evaluated potential impacts of your activity, and we have determined that your
proposal will not likely have an adverse affect on any endangered species.
When you have completed your work and any required mitigation, please sign and return
the enclosed certification form. Should you have any questions on this matter please call me at
the Wilmington Field office at 910-251-4634.
Sincerely,
Dave Timpy
Regulatory Project Manager
Enclosures
Copies Furnished (without enclosures):
Mr. John Hefner, Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 28557-7687
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
980603
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPAUMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. RO. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GovERNoR SECRETARY
?Q?al?ll?
June 30, 1998
WCUNDS _TER A SEC TON
?`I+i - - U _.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
.ATTENTION: Mr. Dave Timpy
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Cumberland Cou ty, Rplcemei t?of Bridge No. 100 over the
Rockfish Cr?TIP No. B-2533, Sate Project No. 8.2441901, Federal
o. BRSTP-1115 (9).
Aid Project NO.-
Attached for your information is a copy of the Categorical Exclusion for the subject
project. Bridge No. 100 will be replaced at its existing location with a new bridge
approximately 150 feet long. Traffic will be detoured onto SR 1112, NC 59, SR 1118,
SR 1117, SR 1 116 and SR 1 119 during construction. The roadway grade of the new
bridge will be approximately the same as the existing bridge grade.
Construction of the proposed project will have approximately .05 acres of permanent
impact. No federally protected species, High Quality Waters, Outstanding Resource
Waters, WS-I, or WS-II waters will be impacted.

7
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical
Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate
requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued December 13, 1996, by the
Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these
regulations will be followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Water Quality Certification No. 3107 will apply to this
project, and are providing one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their
review.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Lindsey
Riddick at [phone] ext. 315.
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P. Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
WDG/plr
Attachments
cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, DWQ
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. J. G. Nance, P. E., Division 6 Engineer
Mr. Randy Wise, P. E., Roadside Environmental
980603 Cumberland County
SR 1115
Bridge No. 100 over Rockfish Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1115(9)
State Project No. 8.2441901
T.I.P. No. B-2533
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
1 L
A
JL. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
DATE
V j
JU . 2 in
WETLAND GROUP
TR QUALITY '¢" ?"fin
10 Q
Cumberland County
SR 1115
Bridge No. 100 over Rockfish Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1115(9)
State Project No. 8.2441901
T.I.P. No. B-2533
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
November, 1996
Documentation Prepared By Ko & Associates, P.C.
isa Hilliard, P.E.
Project Manager - Ko & Associates
?o QoFES?ip?,°?; e?
0
ea a
SEA!
s 5GA ,.
s NGl Nei.-''D
?.q S. Rice k
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
L. Gai Imes, P E , Unit Head
Consultant Engine .ng Unit
Philip S. rris, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
Cumberland County
SR 1115
Bridge No. 100 over Rockfish Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1115(9)
State Project No. 8.2441901
T.I.P. No. B-2533
Bridge No. 100 is included in the NCDOT 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program. The
location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is
classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
1. All standard procedures and measures, including NCDOT's Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters, will be implemented, as applicable, to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts.
2. The location and installation of any required deck drains will be determined during final
design stages.
3. The existing bridge and approaches will be removed to pre-construction contour and
revegetated with native tree species at 320 stems per acre.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 100 will be replaced immediately west of its existing location with a new bridge. During
construction traffic will be maintained on the existing structure.
The estimated cost for the proposed improvement is $1,401,000. The estimated cost of the project,
as shown in the NCDOT 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program, is $778,000 including
$28,000 for right-of-way and $750,000 for construction.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1115 is classified as an urban minor arterial in the Statewide Functional Classification System
The proposed project is located in Cumberland County along the southern edge of Hope Mills. Land
use is primarily residential, with two subdivisions immediately adjacent to the study corridor. A golf
course is located just outside of the project study area.
Near the bridge, SR 1115 has a 5.5 meter (18 ft) pavement width with 1.2 meter (4 ft) shoulders. The
roadway approaches slope down toward the bridge. The horizontal alignment is tangent on the bridge
with a 215 meter radius (8 degree) curve approximately 255 meters (835 ft) from the bridge to the
north. The south approach consists of a 240 meter radius (7.25 degree) curve approximately 120
meters (395 ft) from the bridge. The roadway is situated approximately 7.2 meters (24 ft) above the
creek bed.
The traffic volumes were 4100 vehicles per day (vpd) for 1995 and projected to be 13,200 vpd for
the design year 2020. The volumes include 0% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 1 % dual-tired
(DT) vehicles for the year 1995 and I% TTST and 3% DT vehicles for the year 2020. The speed
limit is posted at 72 kilometers per hour (45 mph).
The existing bridge was built in 1951 (Figure 3). The superstructure consists of four steel girder floor
beam spans. Bridge deck construction is a creosote timber floor deck with an asphalt wearing
surface. The substructure consists of creosote timber pile end bents and interior bents with timber
caps.
The overall length ofthe bridge is 43.0 meters (141 ft). Clear roadway width is 7.4 meters (24.2 ft).
The posted weight limit is 16,329.6 kilograms (18 tons) for single vehicles and 22,680.0 kilograms
(25 tons) for tractor trailer trucks.
Bridge No. 100 has a sufficiency rating of 12.2, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
Seven accidents were reported in the vicinity of the bridge during the period from April 1, 1992 to
March 31, 1995.
An aerial sewer line, supported on steel I-beam, parallels SR 1115 on the west side. Other utilities
that cross the stream are electric limes east of the bridge and telephone lines west of the bridge. Fiber
optic lines are also located northeast of the bridge and assumed to be in the existing right-of-way. A
waterline is located in the southwest quadrant, but does not cross the stream near the bridge. There
are no utilities attached to the bridge.
School buses cross this bridge a total of eighteen times daily. The Cumberland County School
Transportation Director indicated that an off-site detour would cause problems in rerouting of school
bus traffic.
The proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop (TIP No. U-2519) crosses SR 1115 approximately 1.6
kilometers (1 mi) south of the proposed bridge location. A diamond interchange is proposed at this
crossing and a portion of SR 1115 will be relocated to provide a 100 kilometer per hour (60 mph)
design speed. The section of SR 1115 to be relocated begins in the proposed interchange area and
ties into existing SR 1115 approximately 320 meters (1050 ft) south of Bridge No. 100.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives were studied for replacing Bridge No. 100. Each alternate consists of replacing the
existing bridge with a new bridge having a clear roadway width of 12 meters (40 ft) and a length of
46 meters (150 ft). The approach roadway will consist of a 7.2 meter (24 ft) travelway with 2.4 meter
2
(8 R) shoulders, 1.2 meters (4 ft) paved.
The alternate alignments studied are shown in Figure 2 and are as follow
Alternate A (Recommended involves replacing the bridge approximately 15 meters (50 ft) west of
the existing roadway alignment. The existing structure would be used for maintenance of traffic
during construction. A temporary "run-around" on the northbound approach will be required for the
maintenance of traffic since the new pavement undercuts the existing pavement for a distance of
approximately 140 meters (460 ft). If road closure is necessary to tie in the temporary "run-around",
traffic will be detoured on SR 1112, NC 59, SR 1118, SR 1119, SR 1117, and SR 1116 (See Figure
1). The roadway grade of the new bridge would be approximately one meter (3 ft) higher than the
existing bridge grade. The design speed for this alternate is 100 kilometers per hour (60 mph).
Alternate B with on-site detour: involves replacing the bridge at its existing location. The roadway
grade would be approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge grade. The design speed for
this alternate is 80 kilometers per hour (45 mph). Temporary, on-site detours were considered west
(Temporary Detour 1) and east (Temporary Detour 2) of the existing bridge. Traffic would be
maintained with a temporary, on-site detour, located west of the existing bridge (Temporary Detour
No. 1).
Alternate B with off-site detour: involves replacing the bridge at its existing location. The roadway
grade would be approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge grade. The design speed for
this alternate is 80 kilometers per hour (45 mph). Traffic would be detoured on SR 1112, NC 59, SR
1118, SR 1119, SR 1117, and SR 1116 during construction, for a distance of 8.7 kilometers (5.4 mi)
(see Figure 1). Based on a benefit-cost ratio of 5.1:1, an off-site detour is not reasonable (see Section
VII.).
The No-Build or "do-nothing" alternate was also considered but would eventually necessitate closure
of the bridge. This is not desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1115.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that rehabilitation of
the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternatives studied, based on current prices, are as follow:
Alternate A
(Recommended) Alternate B
with on site'
detour ' Alternate B
anth off site
detour
Structure Removal $21,568.80 $21,568.80 $21,568.80
Structure $386,680.00 $386,680.00 $386,680.00
Roadway Approaches $393,751.20 $120,751.20 $120,751.20
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $242,000.00 $167,000.00 $167,000.00
Engineering and Contingencies $156,000.00 $104,000.00 $104,000.00
Right-of-Way / Const. Easement / Util. $201,000.00 * $113,000.00 $113,000.00
SUBTOTAL $1,401,000.00 $913,000.00 $913,000.00
Temporary On-Site Detour NA $467,725.00 NA
TOTAL $1,401,000.00 $1,380,725.00 $913,000.00
* NOTE: The utility cost for Alternate A includes $30,000 for relocation of the sewer line.
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 100 will be replaced 15 meters (50 ft) west of the existing alignment with a two-lane
bridge. The new structure will have a clear roadway width of 12 meters (40 ft) and a length of 46
meters (150 ft). The roadway grade will be approximately one meter (3 ft) higher than the existing
bridge grade. Traffic will be maintained on the existing structure during construction. A temporary
"run-around" on the northbound approach will be required for the maintenance of traffic since the
new pavement undercuts the existing pavement for a distance of approximately 140 meters (460 ft).
If road closure is necessary to tie in the temporary "run-around", traffic will be detoured on SR
1112, NC 59, SR 1118, SR 1119, SR 1117, and SR 1116 (See Figure 1). An off-site detour is not
reasonable at this location due to its length of 8.7 kilometers (5.4 mi) of indirectional travel and the
volume of traffic using SR 1155 (4100 vpd in 1995 and 13,200 vpd projected for 2020). The
Cumberland County School Transportation Director also indicated that an off-site detour would
cause problems in rerouting of eighteen daily school bus trips.
The recommended alternate is compatible with the proposed improvements to the remainder of SR
1115 included in the proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop project (U-2519). The recommended alternate
will provide a design speed of 100 kilometers per hour (60 mph) versus 80 kilometers per hour (45
mph) for the existing alignment alternative.
4
The Division Office concurs with the recommended improvements.
VII. TRAFFIC DETOUR
A road user analysis was performed for detouring traffic on existing roads based on 4100 vpd and
an average of 8.7 kilometers (5.4 mi) of indirectional travel utilizing SR 1112, NC 59, SR 1118, SR
1119, SR 1117, and SR 1116 (See Figure 1). This detour would involve one at-grade railroad
crossing on SR 1117. The cost of additional travel would be approximately $2,400,000 during the
twelve month construction period. The estimated cost of providing an on-site detour is $467,725
resulting in a benefit-cost ratio of 5.1:1. This ratio indicates justification to maintain traffic on-site
during the construction period.
VIII. NATURAL RESOURCES
Methods
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a number of
sources including applicable U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute quadrangle mapping (Hope
Mills, NC), U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory mapping, Natural
Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) (formerly Soil Conservation Service) soils information
(USDA 1984 and USDA 1991) and 1993 aerial photography (scale 1:1200) furnished by NCDOT.
The principal investigator for natural resources was Kevin Markham with Environmental Services,
Inc. Mr. Markham received his B.S. and M.S. degrees in Marine Biology from the University of
North Carolina, Wilmington. He has eight years of experience in coastal ecosystems evaluations,
wildlife surveys, wetland delineations, mitigation planning, and threatened and endangered species
issues.
The site was visited on April 3, 1996. Communities likely to be impacted by proposed improvements
were walked and visually surveyed for important features. Surveys were conducted within a study
corridor approximately 91.4 meters (300 ft) in width, symmetrical to the existing alignment.
However, impact calculations are based on the approximate right-of-way or temporary easement
required. Special concerns evaluated in the field include potential habitat for protected species,
wetlands, and water quality protection in Rockfish Creek.
Plant community descriptions were based on a classification system utilized by the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community
classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant names follow
nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968). Jurisdictional areas were identified using the three
parameter approach (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, wetland hydrology) following U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were
characterized according to a classification scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979). Habitats
used by terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms, as well as expected population distributions, were
determined through field observations, evaluation of available habitat, and supportive documentation
(Martof et al. 1980; Webster et al. 1985; Menhinick 1991; Hamel 1992). Recreational fishing
potential was obtained from Fish (1968). Water quality information for area streams and tributaries
was derived from available sources (DEM 1993). Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to
support existing data.
A USFWS listing of federal protected species with ranges which extend into Cumberland County was
obtained prior to initiation of the field investigation. In addition, NHP records documenting presence
of federal or state listed species were consulted before commencing the field investigation.
Physiography .and Soils
The study corridor is located along the gradient boundary between the Sandhills physiographic
province and the Coastal Plain physiographic province. The Sandhills region is characterized by
broad, sandy ridges, and long, less sandy side slopes. As a result, many streams in this region cut
deeply into the sediment. The Coastal Plain region is characterized by gently undulating broad
interstream flats, with steeper slopes along the edges of stream and river floodplains. The streams
do not cut as deeply into the sediment within the Coastal Plain as in the Sandhills. The land
characteristics in the study corridor suggest that the study corridor is within the Sandhills region.
Elevations within the study corridor range from approximately 23 meters (75 ft) along the creek
bottom to approximately 30 meters (100 ft). along the upland ridges.
Soils within the study corridor occupy two distinct landform units: upland slopes and stream
floodplain. Upland soils include Kalmia loamy sand (Typic Haphrdulls), Vaucluse loamy sand (Typic
Hapludults), a Vaucluse-Gilead loamy sands association (Aquic Haphidults), and Pactolus loamy
sand (Aquic Quarizipsamments). The floodplain soils within the study corridor include two hydric
series, Johnston loam (Cumulic Humaquepts) and Woodington loamy sand (Typic Paleaquulls).
The Kalmia series consists of well drained, sandy soils found on smooth stream terraces. The
Vaucluse and Vaucluse-Gilead series consist of well drained soils on side slopes of uplands.
Permeability is moderate in all three of these series. The Pactolus series consists of moderately well
drained to somewhat poorly drained soils on upland flats and stream terraces. Permeability is rapid
in the Pactolus series.
The Johnston series is a nearly level, very poorly drained soil found along major drainage ways, and
the Woodington series is a nearly level, poorly drained soil found on broad, smooth, low flats and in
shallow depressions of uplands. Permeability in the Johnston series is characterized as moderately
rapid in the upper part of the soil and rapid in the lower part. Permeability is rapid in the Woodington
series. The seasonal high water table is at or above the surface for most of the year in the Johnston
series and generally 0.2 to 0.3 meters (0.5 to 1.0 ft) below the soil surface in the Woodington series.
6
I
WATER RESOURCES
Waters Impacted
The study area is located within the Upper Cape Fear River Subbasin (USGS Hydrologic Unit
03030004) of the Cape Fear River Basin. Bridge No. 100 crosses Rockfish Creek approximately
11.3 kilometers (7 mi) above the confluence with the Cape Fear River. Rockfish Creek has been
assigned Stream Index Number 18-31-(23) by the N.C. Division of Environmental Management
(DEM).
Best Usage Classification and Water Quality
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin. A best usage
classification of C has been assigned to the section of Rockfish Creek containing the study corridor
(DEM 1993). The C designation indicates that appropriate uses include aquatic life propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Secondary recreation refers to
human body contact with water on an infrequent or incidental basis.
No High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS-I, or WS-II waters
occur within 1.6 kilometers (1 mi) of the study corridor. Rockfish Creek is not designated as a North
Carolina Natural and Scenic River, nor is it designated as a national Wild and Scenic River. There
are no permitted discharge sites within the study corridor, but there is a permitted discharge site
downstream from the study corridor, the Fayetteville-PWC Rockfish Creek, at the confluence of
Rockfish Creek and the Cape Fear River (DEM 1989). This site has a permitted flow of 6.0 mgd.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long term trends in water
duality at fixed monitoring sites by sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrates (DEM 1991).
Species richness and overall biomass are considered to be reflections of water quality. Two BMAN
stations are found in the vicinity of the study corridor. The first station is BMAN biological sampling
station S, located at the confluence of Rockfish Creek and the Cape Fear River, approximately 11.2
kilometers (7 mi) downstream of the study corridor. This station maintains a bioclassification rating
of Excellent (DEM 1991). The second station is a special study site (No.49) located on Rockfish
Creek at US 301, approximately 5.1 kilometers (3.2 mi) downstream of the study corridor. The
bioclassification at this site was rated Good in 1983 (DEM 1991).
Stream Characteristics
Rockfish Creek is a relatively narrow, deep creek measuring approximately 12.2 meters (40 R) in
width and 3.0 meters (10 ft) in depth at the bridge site. The creek exhibits extensive meandering, and
is naturally channelized. Banks within the study corridor are variable, but mostly steep, ranging from
approximately 1.8 to 3.7 meters (6 to 12 ft). The banks are composed of soil, with grass, shrub, and
forest vegetation present. The stream substrate is mostly sand. Organic debris found within the creek
7
includes leaves, branches, stumps, and trees. Little aquatic vegetation is present; aquatic vegetation
present included submergent and emergent species. Creek waters exhibited a moderate current and
turbidity at the time of this survey.
Anticipated Water Resources Impact
Short-term impacts to water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, can be anticipated from
construction-related activities. Adverse impacts will be minimized by implementing the NCDOT Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters (BMPs), as applicable, during construction.
No adverse long-term impacts to water resources are expected to result from proposed
improvements. The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of present flow thereby
protecting stream integrity.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Plant Communities
Four distinct plant communities were identified within the study corridor. Three communities,
bottomland hardwood forest, depressional hardwood forest, and upland pine-hardwood forest,
represent natural communities. The other community, urban/disturbed land, results from some level
of disturbance. Communities are described below.
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Wet areas found on relatively high parts of the floodplain of kockfish Creek support bottomland
hardwood forest. The canopy is dominated by sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), water oak
(Quercus nigra), and occasional bald cypress (Taxodium distichum). The midstory/shrub layer is
characterized by saplings of the dominant canopy species, as well as black willow (Salix nigra),
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera). Understory vines include yellow
jessamine (Gelsemiunr sempervirens) and greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia). Although bottomland
hardwood forest cover occurs within the study corridor, the study alternatives do not impact this
community type.
Depressional Hardwood Forest
Small linear depressions supporting hardwood vegetation are located between upland ridges and carry
runoff from surrounding urban areas into Rockfish Creek. The canopy is dominated by sweetgum
and tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). The midstory/shrub layer is characterized by thick
growths of sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), American holly (Ilex opaca), and sweetgum.
Greenbrier is found throughout these areas.
Upland Pine-Hardwood Forest
Dry forested ridges support pine-hardwood vegetation. The canopy is dominated by long-leaf pine
(Pious pahistris), post oak (Quercus stellala), blackjack oak (Quercus marilandica), loblolly pine,
8
and sweetgum. The midstory/shrub layer is dense with long-leaf pine, loblolly pine, blackjack oak,
sweetgum saplings, and devil's walking stick (Aralia sRinosa). Blackberries (Rubus spp.), wire-grass
(Arislida slricla), and greenbrier are found throughout the area.
Urban/Disturbed Land
This community includes roadside margins, powerline right-of-ways, and residential areas.
Successional grasses and herbs are typical of these areas. Landscape plantings supplement natural
vegetation around residential home sites.
Anticipated Impacts to Plant Communities
Anticipated impacts to plant communities are estimated based on the amount of each plant community
present within the proposed right-of-way and temporary construction easements. The following table
summarizes potential impacts which could result from proposed alternatives.
Table 1. Estimated plant community impacts.
PLANT
COMMUNITY
Alternative A
Depressional
Hardwood 0.11 (0.27)
Upland Pine-
Hardwood 0.28 (0.69)
Urban/Disturbed 1.29 (3.19)
ESTIMATED IMPACT
in hectares (acres in parentheses)
Alternative B Temp. Detour 1 Temp. Detour 2
0.02 (0.05)
0.02 (0.06)
0.00 (0.00)
0.05 (0.12)
0.66(l.64)
0.19 (0.47)
0.00 (0.00)
0.15(0.38)
0.07 (0.16)
TOTAL: 1.68 (4.15) 0.73 (1.81) 0.21 (0.53) 0.22 (0.54)
Impacts to plant communities as a result of either Alternative B or Alternative A will not result in
large.impacts to natural communities. Alternative A will impact 0.39 hectare (0.96 ac) of natural
communities and Alternative B will impact 0.07 hectare (0.17 ac) of natural communities. No impacts
to bottomland hardwood forest are anticipated from either alternative.
The off-site detour alternative is not expected to result in impacts to plant communities due to the
utilization of existing roads. Temporary on-site detour alternatives exhibit a minor variation in
potential impacts to the natural communities identified within the study corridor. More impacts to
natural communities will occur in Temporary Detour 1 than Temporary Detour 2, approximately 0.21
hectare versus 0.15 hectare (0.53 ac versus 0.38 ac), respectively. No bottomland forest will be
impacted by either detour alternative. Impacts to plant communities as a result of either detour
alternative are temporary.
9
Wildlife
Terrestrial
Most of the study corridor consists of urban/disturbed land and forested areas contiguous to Rockfish
Creek. Animals expected to occur within the study corridor include ecotonal species and species
adapted to fragmented and anthropogenic landscapes. These species include mammals such as white-
tailed deer (Odocoileus virginiarnus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), gray fox (Urocyoir cinereoargenteus),
gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), eastern cottontail
(Sylvilagus floridanus), and cotton mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus). Expected or observed bird
species include Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis),
yellow-bellied sapsucker (Sphyropicus varius), tufted titmouse (Pares bicolor), brown thrasher
(Toxostoma rufunr), and red-tailed hawk (Buleo janraicensis).
A uatic
Rockfish Creek is large enough to support some recreational fishing. The access at SR 1115 is
considered good fishing for redbreast sunfish (Lepomis aurhus), warmouth (Lepomis gulosus), redfin
pickerel (Esox americanus), and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) (Fish 1968). Additional
nongame fish include golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), tessellated darter (Etheostonra
olmstedi), and sawcheek darter (Etheostonra serriferunr). Stream bank surveys produced no evidence
of freshwater mussels within the study corridor.
The Rockfish Creek floodplain contains areas of temporarily standing water and occasional flow
which provide suitable habitat for semi-aquatic organisms such as eastern newt (Notophthalmus
viridescens), banded water snake (Nerodia fasciata), southern dusky salamander (Desmognathus
auriculatus), green treefrog (Hyla cinerea), green frog (Rana clamitairs), and several species of turtle
(Chrysemys spp.).
Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, the proposed bridge replacement
will not result in substantial loss or displacement of known terrestrial or aquatic animal populations.
Maintenance of regular flow and stream integrity will minimize potential down-stream impacts to
aquatic habitat by the proposed bridge replacement. In addition, permanent and temporary impacts
to downstream habitat from increased sediment during construction will be minimized by the
implementation of the NCDOT Best Manaeement Practices for Protection of Surface Waters.
10
SPECIAL TOPICS
Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the embankments of Rockfish Creek are subject to jurisdictional consideration
under Section 404 as "waters of the United States" (33 CFR 328.3). Rockfish Creek is characterized
as a riverine, lower perennial system with unconsolidated bottom and permanent flooding (R2UBH).
Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) are defined
by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of
hydrology at or near the surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season (DOA 1987).
Based on this three parameter approach, jurisdictional wetlands occur within the study corridor. The
depressional hardwood forest exhibits characteristics of palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous,
temporarily flooded wetlands (PFOIA). Wetland hydrology for this area is maintained by runoff from
SR 1115 and the adjacent residential areas.
Table 2. Estimated wetland impacts.
WETLAND ESTIMATED IMPACT
TYPE in hectares (acres in parentheses)
Alternative A Alternative B Temp Detour 1 Temp Detour 2
PFO 1 A 0.11 (0.27) 0.02 (0.05) 0.02 (0.06) 0.00 (0.00)
Bridging of Rockfish Creek will minimize impacts to the surface waters. Impacts to depressional
hardwood forest (PFO1 A) as a result of Alternative A or Alternative B will total 0.11 hectare (0.27
ac) or 0.02 hectare (0.05 ac), respectively.
Either temporary on-site detour will have relatively minor impact to wetlands. Impacts resulting from
either detour alternative are temporary.
Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands are anticipated from project construction. In accordance with
provisions of Section 404 of the CWA, a permit will be required from the COE for the discharge of
dredge or fill material into "Waters of the United States."
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A) (23) is likely to be applicable for all impacts to Waters of
the United States from the proposed project. This permit authorizes activities undertaken, assisted,
authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or part, by another federal agency or department
where:
(1) that agency or department has determined pursuant to the council on environmental quality
regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy
Act that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither individually
nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment; and,
(2) the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or department's
application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality General Certification from the DEM prior to the
issuance of a Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the CWA requires that the state issue or deny water
quality certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to
Waters of the United States.
Final decisions concerning applicable permits rests with the COE.
Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not proposed for this project.
PROTECTED SPECIES
Federal Protected Species
Species with federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), proposed endangered, and
proposed threatened are protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The following federal protected species are listed for Cumberland County
(August 23, 1996 USFWS list):
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) - T(S/A)
Saint Francis' satyr (Neonympha milchelli francisci) - E
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia) - E
Pondberry (= Southern spicebush) (Lindera melissifolia) - E
American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana) - E
Small-whorled pogonia (Isolria medeoloides) - T
Red-cockaded woodpeckers (RCW) - Primary nest sites for RCWs include open pine stands greater
than 60 years of age with little or no mid-story development. Foraging habitat is comprised of open
pine or pine/mixed hardwood stands 30 years of age or older (Henry 1989). No suitable habitat for
this species is present within the study corridor, and no RCW records are known from within the
study corridor. A review of NHP records indicates that in 1982 this species was documented at a site
approximately 4.3 kilometers (2.7 mi) east of the study corridor. This cavity was reported abandoned
in a 1990 survey.
12
This project is not expected to affect RCWs due to the absence of suitable nesting habitat (stand-sized
pine or pine-hardwood forest containing pines greater than 60 years) and foraging habitat (stand-sized
pine or pine-hardwood forest containing pines greater than 30 years) within the study corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
American alligator - American alligator is listed as threatened based on the similarity in appearance
to other federally-listed crocodilians; however, there are no other crocodilians within North Carolina.
American alligators can be found in freshwater to estuarine aquatic habitats including swamp forests,
marshes, large streams and canals, and ponds and lakes.
Potential habitat for American alligator exists within the study corridor. Construction activities may
temporarily displace any American alligators in the vicinity; however, no long-term impact to
American alligator is anticipated as a result of this project.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Saint Francis' satyr - This species occurs primarily in wet meadows dominated by sedges and
grasses (USFWS 1995). NHP and USFWS records indicate this listed subspecies is known to occur
at only one locality, an artillery range at Fort Bragg. No suitable habitat for this species exists within
the study corridor.
This project will not affect Mitchell satyr butterfly because no suitable habitat occurs within the study
corridor. The study corridor does not contain wet meadows dominated by sedges or grasses.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Rough-leaved loosestrife - This plant typically inhabits the ecotone between.long-leaf pine savannas
and wetter shrubby areas, where lack of canopy vegetation allows abundant sunlight into the herb
layer (USFWS 1994). No suitable habitat exists within the study corridor. A review of NHP records
indicates that this species was historically (1902 record) described as occurring in the Hope Mills
area; however, no recent sightings have been documented.
This project is not expected to affect rough-leaved loosestrife because suitable habitat is not present
within the study corridor. The roadside margins within the study corridor are regularly maintained
and generally well-drained and do not provide habitat for rough-leaved loosestrife. No pine savanna
is present within the study corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Pondberry - This plant typically occurs in coastal plain sink-hole depressions and swamps, generally
in association with pocosin shrubs. A review of NHP records shows that'this species has not been
documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the study corridor.
13
This project is not expected to affect pondberry because suitable habitat for this species is not present
within the study corridor. No sink-hole depressions or ponded depressions were noted within the
study corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
American chaffseed - This plant typically occurs in grass/sedge assemblages on moist, acidic, sandy
loams or sandy peat loams, which typically exist in moist pine flatwoods, savannas, bog borders, and
open oak forests. No suitable habitat for this species exists within the study corridor. A review of
NHP records shows that this species has not been documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the
study corridor.
This project is not expected to affect American chaffseed because typical habitat is not present within
the study corridor. The pine-hardwood forest within the study corridor contains oaks, but is generally
well-drained and does not provide habitat for American chaffseed.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Small-whorled pogonia - The small-whorled pogonia is a small-flowered terrestrial orchid to about
1 foot high. This species is found on moist hardwood slopes and along stream bottoms (Radford et
al. 1968), usually in association with white pine (Pinus strobus) (Weakley 1993). The small whorled
pogonia is widespread but very local in distribution, inhabiting the Mountains and upper Piedmont
from southern Maine to northern Georgia (Weakley 1993). NHP records indicate that this species
has not been documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the study corridor.
This project is not expected to affect small-whorled pogonia because typical habitat is not present
within the study corridor. No white pines were noted within the study corridor, and the upland slopes
are generally well-drained.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Federal species of concern - The August 23, 1996 USFWS list also includes a category of species
designated as "Federal species of concern" (FSC). The FSC designation provides no federal
protection for the species listed. NHP files do not document any FSC within the study corridor. The
following are listed as FSC for Cumberland County:
Common Name
Bachman's sparrow
Northern pine snake
Southern hognose snake
Atlantic pigtoe
Yellow lampmussel
Awned meadowbeauty
Bog spicebush
Boykin's lobelia
Carolina asphodel
Scientific Name Potential Habitat
Aimophila aestivates N
Pituophis melanoleucas melanoleucas Y
Keterodon simus Y
Fusconaia masoni Y
Lampsilis cariosa Y
Rhexia aristosa N
Lindera subcoriacea N
Lobelia boykinii N
Tofieldia glabra Y
14
Carolina goldenrod
Carolina grass-of-parnassus
Conferva pondweed
Georgia indigo-bush
(=Georgia leadplant)
Loose watermilfoil
Pickering's dawnflower
Pondspice
Resinous boneset
Roughleaf yellow-eyed grass
Sandhills bog lily
Sandhills milkvetch
Sandhills pyxie-moss
Savanna cowbane
Spiked medusa
Spring-flowering goldenrod
Venus flytrap
Wavyleaf wild quinine
White wicky
State Protected Species
Solidago pulchra N
Parnassia caroliniana N
Polamogelon confervoides N
Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana Y
Myriophylhmr laxrim N
Stylisma pickeringii var. pickeringii Y
Lilsea aeslivalis N
Eupatorium resinosunr N
Xyris scabrifolia Y
Lilium iridollae N
Asiragalus michauxii Y
Pyxidanthera barbulata var. brevifolia Y
Oxypolis lernala . Y
Pleroglossaspis ecristala N
Solidago verna N
Dionaea muscipula N
Parthenium radfordii N
Kalmia cuneala N
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state list as Endangered (E), Threatened
(T), or Special Concern (SC) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered Species
Act (G.S. 113-331 el seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202.12
el seq.). A review of NHP records indicates that no state-listed species have been documented within
2.4 kilometers (1.5 mi) of the study corridor.
IX. CULTURAL RESOURCES
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 for federally
funded, licensed, or permitted projects, having an effect on properties listed in or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an
opportunity to comment.
In a concurrence form dated May 9, 1996 the Federal Highway Administration, NCDOT, and the
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred that there are no properties,
including Bridge No. 100, in the area of potential effect listed in or eligible for the National Register
(see Appendix for Concurrence Form).
15
In their April 22, 1996 letter, the SHPO stated that there are no known archaeological sites in the
proposed project area and it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may be eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places will be affected. They recommended no archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with this project (see Appendix for SHPO letter). Therefore,
the NCDOT has not conducted nor will conduct any archaeological work in connection with this
project.
Since there are no properties either listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
within the APE, no further compliance with Section 106 is required.
X. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact by replacing a potentially unsafe bridge.
Inconvenience to motorists will be negligible since traffic will be maintained on site.
The project is considered a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and insignificant
environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulations. No significant
change in existing land use is expected to result from replacement of the bridge.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. No relocatees are expected with
implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of
national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
Since the project will consist of replacing an existing bridge, the Farmland Protection Policy Act does
not apply.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the regional
emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
Noise levels could increase during demolition but will be temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by
burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the
North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC
2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise of Title
16
23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772 and for air quality (1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act) and no additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, 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 bridge is
located in a Detailed Study Area. The Flood Boundary and Floodway Map is included in the
Appendix. This map indicates the limits of the 100-year and the 500-year floodplains as well as the
100-year floodway. Since the proposed bridge will be an in-kind replacement, it is not anticipated that
this project will have a significant adverse impact on the existing floodplain and floodway nor on the
associated flood hazard to the adjacent properties and buildings.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental effects
will result from implementation of the project.
17
REFERENCES
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. USFWS/OBS -79/31. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Tech.
Rpt. Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 100 pp.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1989. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient
Network (BMAN) Water Quality Review 1983-1987. North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 193 pp.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality in
North Carolina Streams: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data Base and Long Term Changes in Water
Quality, 1983-1990. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Water Quality Section, Raleigh.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Classifications and Water Quality Standards
Assigned to The Waters of the Cape Fear River Basin. North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 46 pp.
Fish, F.F. 1968. A Catalog of the Inland Fishing Waters of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Division of Inland Fisheries, Raleigh. 312 pp.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994. Agency Draft Rough-leaved Loosestrife Recovery Plan.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 37 pp.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1995. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Determination of Endangered Status for Neonympha mitchelli francisci. Federal Register 60(17):
5264-5267.
Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,
Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
Henry, V.G. 1989. Guidelines for Preparation of Biological Assessments and Evaluations for the
Red-cockaded Woodpecker. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast
Region, Atlanta, GA. 13 pp.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of
the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 264 pp.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
18
I
Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 325 pp.
U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States. Soil
Conservation Service, Miscellaneous Publication Number 1491.
U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1984. Soil Survey of Cumberland and Hoke Counties,
North Carolina. Soil Conservation Service. 155 pp.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and
Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp.
19
LAEFOAD •\ I.Iaa x-utJAwL \
r ?
O kit;
r
•p G j
1 '
ti
n
• UlCUURCM
e .\
T '
O
B

7
Cyp.u Lakes
O•s •? .
'0 • Ar q.,
v i 7i! 71!!
/ Doti .7 l 71 77lZ
L 1.6
) J 7777
r,:.r z
1 r h.
77 w a.
O it
7711
b "
ti to u
a :1,! 71'7 'e
.6 .0 771!
771.1
1.0 .0 3.0 KM Z ` 7771 ? ,
Source: Count' Road Maps, s a v7i
NCOOT, 1990 1727
Studied Detour Route Site Location Map Figure: 1
Bridge # 100
SR 1115 Over Project:
Rockfish Creek
Cumberland County, NC Date: AUG 1996
B-2533
i ?

BRIDGE NO. 100
CUMBERLAND
COUNTY
B-2533
LOOKING NORTH
FIGURE 3
09
x o
z
O?
Q cr
. 3a
o O
F?
O Q
? J
N ?
v

,N

od
(SN
1
T ? .
i
co
w
z i
j
r?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
April 22, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation p/
FROM: David Brook li
Deputy State His rOfficer
SUBJECT: Group XI Bridge Replacement Projects
Bridge 100 on SR 1115 over Rockfish Creek,
Cumberland County, B-2533, ER 96-8562
Thank you for your letter of March 13, 1996, concerning the above project.
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
We are aware of no structures of historic or architectural importance within the general
area of the project.
We recommend that an architectural historian on your staff identify and evaluate any
structures over fifty years of age within the project area, and report the findings to us.
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. 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 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.
DB:slw
cc: N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
109 East Joncs Strcct • Ralcigh, North Carolina 27601-2907 ?.?
Federal Aid # IMO ,T P - 1115 (1) TIP #
County 6w"eP 2"#42
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description REPI.ACe PIP.lor a 40. loo 09 49- Illq 014M y..46W-rrrH Gtz- F_V--
(bwvGe frRouP Y.1
)
On w1? °l ` 1`1?fv , representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Othcr
reviewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
? Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
V" there are no properties over fifth, years old within the project's area of potential cffccts.
? there arc no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential cffccts.
there arc properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential cffccts,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as arc considered not eligible
for National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
`/ there are no National Register-listed properties within the projects area of potential effects.
Signed:
Rcpresc • , CDOT
l? L r n .
the Division Adrrrii strator, or other Federal Agency
`? . 111
Preservation Officer
Date
S//>/i 6
If a survey report is prcparcd, a final copy of Obis form and dic attaclicd list will be included.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
AT
ID EHNR
April 15, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Phil Harris
From: Eric Galam
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for Group XI Bridge Replacement Projects
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental Management requests that
DOT consider the following generic environmental commitments for bridge
replacements:
A. DEM requests that DOT strictly -adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled,
"Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout
design and construction for this project in the area that drains to streams having
WS (water supply), ORW ?a<.,tstanding resource water), HQW (high quality
water), B (body contact), SA (shellfish water) or Tr (trout water) classifications
to protect existing uses.
B. DEM requests that bridges be replaced in existing location with road closure. If
an on-site detour or road realignment is necessary, the approach fills should be
removed to pre-construction contour and revegetated with native tree species at
320 stems per acre.
C. DEM requests that weep holes not be installed in the replacement bridges in
order to prevent sediment and other pollutants from entering the body of water.
If this is not completely possible, weep holes should not be installed directly
over water.
D. Wetland impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures). If this is not possible, alternatives that minimize wetland
impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts may be required.
E. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands. It is likely that compensatory
mitigation will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
Please be aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts
have not been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
cc: Monica Swihart
Melba McGee
bridges.sco
P.O. Box 29535. Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action EmplOVer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
1 P.O. BOX 1890 5 u?
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
REPLY TO April 11, 1996
ATTENTION OF
Regulatory Branch Y t?
Action ID No. 199601562
V
Mr. L
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager J
Planning and Environmental Branch QQ? -
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways „
Post Office Box 25201 v J:J
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201?YNII?/
G&E
Dear Mr. Vick:
Reference your letter dated March 13, 1996, requesting comments regarding
the potential environmental impacts associated with the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Group XI Bridge Replacement Project,
Bridge No. 50 on NC Highway 903 over Little Contentnea Creek, at the Pitt
County and Greene County line, near Scuffleton, North Carolina, TIP B-1204.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates excavation and/or discharge
of excavated and/or fill material into waters of the United States, including
wetlands. The Corps of Engineers must assess the impacts of such activities
on the aquatic environment before a final permit decision can be made.
Federal permit authorization of fill activities within waters of the
United States pursuant to Section 404 requires that the project be water
dependant and/or that no practicable alternatives are available. Our initial
emphasis for review of NCDOT projects focuses on anticipated impacts to waters
and/or wetlands. However, if degradation to other aspects of the natural
environment (e.g., critical habitat of endangered species) is considered to be
of greater concern, an alternative resulting in greater aquatic losses may be
chosen as preferred. In all cases, and in accordance with Lithe 1990 Mitigation
Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
the Corps, unavoidable impacts to wetland resources must be addressed prior to
the final permit decision.
Based upon our review of the documentation you provided, much more
information is needed for us to make a determination regarding the rpdpral
permit requirements. Specifically, you should provide project plans which
describe the proposed work and indicate all impacts to waters of the United
States, including wetlands, associated with this project. Wetland impacts
should be described in terms of size, location, and type. This includes
temporary and permanent approach fills, and any borrow/waste activity that may
impact waters and/or wetlands.
Once this information becomes available, please provide it to the
Washington Regulatory Field Office for our review. As your planning process
continues, please be reminded that avoidance and minimization of impacts to
waters and wetlands should be undertaken to the maximum extent practicable.
In addition, a compensatory mitigation plan must be developed and approved
prior to the issuance of a Department of the Army permit.
I
-2-
Thank you for your time and cooperation. If you have any questions,
ple4se contact Mr. Henry Wicker, Washington Regulatory Field Office,
telephone [phone], extension 25.
Sincerely,
e 44
kL RLY---
David M. Lekson, P.W.S.
Field Office Manager
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. Thomas Welborn, Chief
Wetlands Regulatory Section - Region IV
Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Mr. Larry Hardy
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. John Hefner
U.S. Fish and wildlife service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
ENT OF Ty
United States Department of the Interior
o rya
m
M A FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office G E !?
Post Office Box 33726
?4gCH 3,?% Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
March 27, 1996
V MAR 2 b 1996
Mr. H. Franklin Vick z DIVISIC?V U,
Planning and Environmental Branch C HIGH
N.C. Division of Highways ¢ WAYS
P.O. Box 25201 ?y??ROWe?P
Raleigh, NC 27611
Subject: Group XI Bridge Replacement Projects
Various counties, North Carolina (TIP Nos. B-1204, 2514, 2533,
2818, 2861, 2862, 2873, 2964, 3011, 3035, 3085, 3274, 3392, 3410)
Dear Mr. Vick:
This responds to your letter of March 13, 1996 requesting information from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for evaluating the potential
environmental impacts of the above-referenced projects. This report provides
scoping information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report also serves
as comments to federal and state resource agencies for use in their permitting
and/or certification processes for this project.
Preliminary planning by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
calls for the replacement of fourteen bridges in various Eastern North Carolina
counties.
The Service's mission is to provide the leadership to conserve, protect, and
enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of all
people. Due to staffing limitations, we are unable to provide you with site-
specific comments at this time. However, the following recommendations should
help guide the planning process and facilitate our review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized
to the maximum extent practicable as outlineo in the clean water Act section
404(b)(1) Guidelines. Bridge replacements should maintain natural water flows
and circulation regimes without scouring or impeding fish and wildlife passage.
Habitat fragmentation should be minimized by using the existing disturbed
corridor instead of a new alignment. Impact areas should be stabilized by using
appropriate erosion control devices and/or techniques. Wherever appropriate,
construction in sensitive areas should occur outside of anadromous fish spawning
and migratory bird nesting seasons.
We reserve the right to review any required federal or state permits at the time
of public notice issuance. Resource agency coordination should occur early in
the planning process to resolve land use conflicts and minimize delays.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental
documentation for this project include the following (the level of detail should
be commensurate with the degree of environmental impacts):
1. A clearly defined purpose and need for the proposed project including a
discussion of the project's independent utility;
2. An analysis of the alternatives to the proposed project that were
considered, including a no action alternative;
3. A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within the action
area of the proposed project which may be affected directly or
indirectly;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that
are to be impacted by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, and/or
draining. Wetland impact acreages should be differentiated by habitat
type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National Wetlands
Inventory. Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987
Corps of Enaineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers;
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent,
that would be likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed
project. Also, an assessment should be included regarding the extent to
which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to natural
resources and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative
adverse effects;
6. Techniques which would be employed to design and construct wetland
crossings, relocate stream channels, and restore, enhance, or create
wetlands for compensatory mitigation;
7. Mitigation measures which would be employed to avoid, minimize, rectify,
reduce, or compensate for habitat value losses associated with the
project. These measures should include a detailed compensatory
mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered, threatened, and
candidate species that are known to occur in Bladen, Brunswick, Columbus,
Cumberland, Duplin, Durham, Greene, Pender, Pitt, Robeson, Scotland, Wayne, and
Wilson counties. Habitat requirements for the Federally-listed species in the
project area should be compared with the available habitat at the project site.
If suitable habitat is present within the action area of the project, field
surveys for the species should be performed, and survey methodologies and results
included in the environmental documentation for this project. In addition to
this guidance, the following information should be included in the environmental
document regarding protected species (the level of detail should be commensurate
with the degree of environmental impacts):
1. A specific description of the proposed action to be considered;
A description and accompanying map of the specific area used in the
analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts;
3. A description of the biology and status of the listed species and of the
associated habitat that may be affected by the action, including the
results of an onsite inspection;
4. An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed species and
associated habitat:
a. Direct and indirect impacts of the project on listed species.
Indirect effects are those that are caused by the proposed action
and are later in time but are still reasonably certain to occur;
b. A discussion of the environmental baseline which includes
interrelated, interdependent, past and present impacts of Federal,
State, and private activities in the project and cumulative effects
area;
C. Interrelated actions are those that are part of a larger action and
depend on the larger action for their justification;
d. Cumulative impacts of future State and private activities (not
requiring Federal agency involvement, that will be considered as
part of future Section 7 consultation);
5. Summary of evaluation criteria used as a measurement of potential effects;
6. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any listed
species or associated habitat including project proposals to
reduce/eliminate adverse effects;
7. Based on evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the project is
not likely to adversely affect or may affect threatened and endangered
species.
Candidate species are those plant and animal species for which the Service has
sufficient information on their biological status and threats to their survival
to propose them as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). Although candidate species receive no statutory protection under the ESA,
Federal agencies are required to informally confer with the Service on actions
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of these species or that may destroy
or modify proposed critical habitat. Species of concern include those species
for which the service does not have enough scientific information to support a
listing proposal or species which do not warrant listing at the present time.
Species of Concern receive no statutory protection under the ESA, but could
become candidates in the future if additional scientific information becomes
available indicating they are endangered or threatened. Formal listing places
the species under the full protection of the ESA, and necessitates a new survey
if its status in the project corridor is unknown. Therefore, it would be prudent
for the project to avoid any adverse impact to candidate species or their
habitat. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for
information on species under State protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please
continue to advise us of the progress made in the planning process, including
your official determination of the impacts of this project.
/ Si c e y yc
Wails n La
Acting ?ield
Attachments
cc: NCDEHNR-DEM
NCWRC
NMFS
FHWA
USACE
EPA
s,
Supe visor
FWS/R4/KDoak/KHD:3-26-96/919-856-4520 ext 19/wp:BMAR96.SCP
p
Cumberland County
SR 1115 Bridge No. 100 over Rockfish Creek 9806013
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1115(9)
State Project 8.2441901
TIP No. B-2533
ADDENDUM TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
FIB
4JJ'z-
e H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Mana er
Planning and Environmental Branch
Date ,?z cholas L. Graf, P. E.
U Division Administrator, FHWA
Cumberland County
SR 1115
Bridge No. 100 over Rockfish Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1115(9)
State Project 8.2441901
TIP No. B-2533
ADDENDUM TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
August, 1997
Documentation Prepared in
Planning and Environmental Branch By:
8A0 L
at Stacy Y. B wing'.
Project Planning Engineer CAR
ie
4 It
SEAL e
ate rimes, P. Unit Head t
Cons It nt En i in Unit 14496
g g l•.,F Xf N??Q, :L
Ne?
? ?ee L •• e GR1
•° Cq
/fir/jD?IIIi1111?,6?,
Cumberland County
SR 1115
Bridge No. 100 over Rockfish Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1115(9)
State Project 8.2441901
TIP No. B-2533
BACKGROUND
A Categorical Exclusion for the subject project was approved on November 27,
1996. The recommended alternative was to replace Bridge No. 100 immediately west of
its existing location with a new bridge as shown by Alternate A in Figure 2. Subsequently,
additional detailed studies determined a more feasible and cost effective alternate exists.
This currently recommended alternate is described in the Categorical Exclusion as
replacing the bridge at its existing location and is shown in Figure 2 as Alternate B.
II. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures, including NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters, will be implemented, as applicable, to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts.
The location and installation of any required deck drains will be determined during
final design stages.
The existing bridge and approaches will be removed to pre-construction contour
and revegetated with native tree species at 320 stems per acre.
III. DISCUSSION
The two study alternates consists of replacing the existing bridge with a new
structure having a clear roadway width of 12 meters (40 feet). The approach roadway will
consists of a 7.2 meter (24 feet) travelway with 2.4 meter (8 feet) shoulders, 1.2 meters (4
feet) paved. The alternate alignments studied are shown in Figure 2.
Alternate A involves replacing the bridge approximately 15 meters (50 feet) west
of the existing roadway alignment. This alternate would consist of replacing the existing
bridge with a bridge 70 meters (230 feet) long. The existing structure would be used for
maintenance of traffic during construction. A temporary "run-around" on the northbound
approach will be required for the maintenance of traffic since the new pavement undercuts
the existing pavement for a distance of approximately 140 meters (460 feet). If road
closure is necessary to tie in the temporary "run-around", traffic will be detoured on SR
1112, NC 59, SR 1118, SR 1119, SR 1117 and SR 1116 (see Figure 1). The roadway
grade of the new bridge would be approximately one meter (3 feet) higher than the
existing bridge grade. The design speed for this alternate is 100 kilometers per hour
(60 miles per hour). This alternative is not recommended because it is more costly to
construct than Alternate B.
Cumberland County
SR 1115
Bridge No. 100 over Rockfish Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1115(9)
State Project 8.2441901
TIP No. B-2533
BACKGROUND
A Categorical Exclusion for the subject project was approved on November 27,
1996. The recommended alternative was to replace Bridge No. 100 immediately west of
its existing location with a new bridge as shown by Alternate A in Figure 2. Subsequently,
additional detailed studies determined a more feasible and cost effective alternate exists.
This currently recommended alternate is described in the Categorical Exclusion as
replacing the bridge at its existing location and is shown in Figure 2 as Alternate B.
II. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures, including NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters, will be implemented, as applicable, to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts.
The location and installation of any required deck drains will be determined during
final design stages.
The existing bridge and approaches will be removed to pre-construction contour
and revegetated with native tree species at 320 stems per acre.
III. DISCUSSION
The two study alternates consists of replacing the existing bridge with a new
structure having a clear roadway width of 12 meters (40 feet). The approach roadway will
consists of a 7.2 meter (24 feet) travelway with 2.4 meter (8 feet) shoulders, 1.2 meters (4
feet) paved. The alternate alignments studied are shown in Figure 2.
Alternate A involves replacing the bridge approximately 15 meters (50 feet) west
of the existing roadway alignment. This alternate would consist of replacing the existing
bridge with a bridge 70 meters (230 feet) long. The existing structure would be used for
maintenance of traffic during construction. A temporary "run-around" on the northbound
approach will be required for the maintenance of traffic since the new pavement undercuts
the existing pavement for a distance of approximately 140 meters (460 feet). If road
closure is necessary to tie in the temporary "run-around", traffic will be detoured on SR
1112, NC 59, SR 1118, SR 1119, SR 1117 and SR 1116 (see Figure 1). The roadway
grade of the new bridge would be approximately one meter (3 feet) higher than the
existing bridge grade. The design speed for this alternate is 100 kilometers per hour
(60 miles per hour). This alternative is not recommended because it is more costly to
construct than Alternate B.
Alternate B (Recommended) involves replacing the bridge at its existing location.
This alternate would consist of replacing the existing bridge with a bridge 46 meters
(150 feet) long. The roadway grade would be approximately the same elevation as the
existing bridge grade. The design speed for this alternative is 80 kilometers per hour
(45 miles per hour). Traffic would be detoured on SR 1112, NC 59, SR 1118, SR 1119,
SR 1117, and SR 1116 during construction, for a distance of 8.7 kilometers (5.4 miles)
(see Figure 1). The alternative is recommended because it is less costly to construct than
Alternative A.
The estimated costs of the studied alternatives have increased since the Categorical
Exclusion was approved. In the early stages of project development, estimates were based
on limited preliminary engineering data. Completion of surveys and detailed designs
indicated the proposed bridge length of Alternate A should be 70 meters (230 feet), not
the 46 meters (150 feet) estimated in the Categorical Exclusion. Preliminary designs
indicated that the length for Alternative B would remain 46 meters (150 feet).
The revised estimated construction costs of the alternatives are as follows:
Alternative A
Structure $ 592,910
Roadway Approaches 393,751
Detour Structure and Approaches 0
Structure Removal 21,569
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 302,469
Engineering and Contingencies 196,605
Right-of-Way/Construction Easement/Utilities 201,000
TOTAL $1,708,304
IV. RECOMMENDATION
(Recommended)
Alternative B
391,836
120,751
0
21,569
160,247
104,160
113,000
$ 911,563
Alternates A and B provide the same traffic service. Environmental consequences
of each alternate are considered to be equal and are limited in scope, and are accurately
described in the Categorical Exclusion. Based on the above, it is recommended that
Bridge No. 100 in Cumberland County be replaced with a new bridge on existing location
with an offsite detour of traffic during construction.
_ -AAJ&wv 1 .'

1
\ •7
W.

T'l