20001181 Ver 1_Complete File_20000912

W
rydwAAT[ a?
N r
•v ? ?• 7 Vu
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
November 27, 2000 co rJz'lydy-Ayo0

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTN: Mr. Dave Timpy
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
Subject: Richmond County, Bridge No. 90 over Mountain Creek on SR 1148, TIP
No. B-3026, State Project No. 8.2580701, Federal Aid No. BRZ-1148(2).
As you are aware, the North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to
replace Bridge No. 90 over Mountain Creek on SR 1148. Nationwide Permits No. 23 and
33 were applied for on August 21, 2000. The purpose of this letter is to request a permit
modification for an additional temporary causeway, which will result in temporary
surface water impacts. Attached for your information are permit drawings for the
temporary causeway.
To construct the proposed center pier, a temporary causeway must be employed.
The amount of temporary fill in surface waters will be approximately 0.13 ac. The fill
will be composed of Class II Rip Rap (1.5:1).
The NCDOT requests that you authorize the bridge replacement, temporary
detour, and temporary causeway under Nationwide Permits No. 23 and 33.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Mr. Matt
Haney at [phone] ext. 333.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27899-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WNW.. DOH. DOT. STATE. NC. US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
Sincerely,
I/ C. ??
kA-, William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc:
Mr. David Franklin, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Garland Pardue, USFWS, Raleigh
Mr. N.L. Graf, P.E., FHWA
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E. Program Development Branch
Mr. Timothy V. Rountree, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. A.L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Bill Rosser, P.E., Division 8 Engineer
Mr. Wayne Elliott, PD&EA

3
45 458
?l14 1151 100
316
153 1457

1150 1314 131
Moness
V,
1523
1 1 73
45 144
I? 148 1313
1 56
307 1315
EUENE
1424
1 1149 33 131 '•15 455
496
E«,Wm - 309 45
1146 100 1148 y
1308 1441 a 1487
148 147 1494 1424
PROJECT B-32 1146 005 5
-
? 307
11 5
/
» 1486
1144
1306 1477
114
?44 476
L?- 1 41 14
1142 478

100 rJN Led
2W NIN -
114
4 74 74
?? ? N HAM
POP. 15
74
1
61
?
2
,
177 G
v
EAST
AML
OCKINGH n! r
UNINC
(
.)

/% V 11 12 0
VICINITY MAP

N. C. DEPT. Of TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAY'S
VICINITY RICHMOND COUNTY
PRO.ILCT:8.2580701 (I3-3020
/?
MAPS '
PLACENIENT OF BRIDGE N(0.90
RE
OVER bIOtJN'I'AIN CREEK. ON SRII48
SHI;E'I' I OF 7
7. d
U) 7,
[ O
Y ?
n ?
m
A., O
In
C~"
r
n
r
Ci7
r
11
r
O
O
\ I '5
I \

i

r ?
--l-00 + S Z
?
I I I I I ,? 4?^ ?
Fs
pF? \
I
G i / a I
\
I
? I
I
?
gq S+ I \ g

w

n

IT ITI
)
I
Z
_~
O ?
y
d

I v hH_I ?^•y Fy
-1
1 ?

? ® H

Q) C

I ^
C)

N CJ
O C)
c x
? o
x z
`?
• N
(7 O
? z
r a

? r

r
tii
n
D
C
N
m
D
r-

N
P
V
a iI
I:z
N
N
N
N
Cl O O O O p O p

V I

I O
m 1

N
O

N
J
N r-
N I
N
w
N
A
OZ N
Zr n
71 d v
?C)
o C r
E4 0 'o
O
W z !' x a o
-3 00 O
C^ Z O
d
O 0 o
z ~ O Zn y
Ctrl ? O
c l
e
II
In M N
, r
m m n a
? < Z N
•_ vi a
O OD W +
0o O , O
N U,
? r
v
A
m
x

„ n m u
N
Q OD n
C? ? N
? N
N
J +
p
O l
O
r?
mr>
<n
•u C
cn m
o?
O D
O
m0
r
•„ c
rn
mm
o?
o?

O O
D F- C
C D
FFJ Z
D FT1 -j

O O

- m
r l m
U)
C7 C7
?- r- O
T
D D

Frl
U)
V)

-? -D D

FFI

D D
? m
O
? o
D ?
? a

w
U)
x
z
let
n
I? ? n 4

®
C7 ,

7
7? C
°
x

n
0 n
c 7
x

r d C4

C-)
F- O
D C7
U)
U)
- n
? C
?FFJ
D D
-CJ -<
O
0000
?? 000
0000
00 00
00
?O?DO
O
000 ? O
0000
OO 0?0
00000
SOD O O
0
00?0? 0
00? 0 O
00 I
\°c? ! N

m
cu
c?
I
I
Iz
I(J-)
Im
Ir-
I ii
I°
100
N
CTI
O
0

m m _
-? -I cn
O
C m -?
M D
z ?
CD
D
C
-{
m D s 0
M
D
F- l -0 - I
(/) ?u T
o m
V) U)
m O C?
m D U) D
'10 FFJ C
D M 0 U)
F- m
D D m :*
z D
?
0
< O -
C
)
-
m D FT
1

D F-
O Z O

D
m ? -l
O = m
-? m o
Z
z ?
O
4
O
cn ?'
n
D
f ?l
?r
I
C
O
D ?
? C
m
D FT-1
O O
--Ti m
n n
F- m
D D
v) cn
m
m ?
D D
II II
O 6?
LO Q
D ?
? a
FT-1
U)

O
D
z
m
U)
O
Fn
D
n ?
F- O
D C-)
U
D
-u CC/?
m
D D
2
000 0
X0
O000
0000
OO O?
00 00
00
O 0 00,
O
0000
0 000
0000
000 0 O
O
000 00
00 00 O
00 0°0
00 I
0
?? I N
z
x
m
m -0 tv
(Jl 7 ® r ® C b
N ? n4
® ® o n ? 0 - cn
% 0 -?
? m
I~' ??z 't=)®oil
CJI?
motel ?u
r`C a? ?` Cn
C7
I
I
Iz
IU)
Im
?rTI
II
m I?

O
D
ci cu
?:u ?:u
0 CD
G7 G7
m m
u
m m
?wu
C/? Tl
? z
D O
N M
C,1 ?7
+
LA m
x
---i
D m
z z
0 0
cn o
--I C
D -I
N
+
UJ ?
CO
_
_ m
cn ?u
m cn
m r-
-p O
F- C-)
D D
z
m
o
m D
ci
z ?
O
O
cn ?
C7
m

-I
O ?
D a
?
r
N
N
w
cn T (n
N 3 W
+
O
?
W
O 0 O
D
cn
cn
m to
c

m ?f n
?
c
D tD
{
N
T
.-.
? N
O _
O ?
(D
N (D ?
-
" m

o r _

x 0 -D

110
D

? Vl
N ( n C
(D S
n O ?. 7
r
- D
O O

T
Z
v ?
c -?
n
@ Cl)
O GG
cn
2
m N
C
m v
m mo
m "n
v a n
m m
0

o
° _ ? ? ' 3 m
w n 'O
" C A
O O O
O o <
v< T
m m
O O N W D
i
0
0
-
3 0 m
?
Z
n T x
v cn
D m
T
_ z o _
G7 U o

?
v 2
O
x

?fD
D
D o
m { N
0
O
4 (n J
p Q D (D
Z Q
W
w nm
o ?
N ^?, d (?
N

O J
. a
D cl
o
v

O 7
O Q1
C
n
m
v r,4
07 0
0 0
ci D
c? n n

p n N

c
, n v ?'

SITE
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
NAMES ADDRESSES
P.O, BOX 568
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT MT. GILEAD, N.C. 27306
WILLIAMETTE INDUSTRIES INC.
KRESS C. GOODWIN
452 LAKLSHORE
PARKWAY SUITE 120
ROCKHILL , SC 29730
P.O. BOX 398
LILESVILLE, N.C. 28091

r.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
:DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
,, .
August 21, 2000
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTN: Mr. Dave Timpy
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
001181
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
Subject: Richmond County, Bridge No. 90 over Mountain Creek on SR 1148, TIP
No. B-3026, State Project No. 8.2580701, Federal Aid No. BRZ-1148(2).
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning documents for the
subject project. This project consists of a bridge replacement at the existing location,
with traffic maintained during construction using an on-site temporary detour south of the
existing bridge. The temporary alignment would include a temporary bridge
approximately 42.7 m (140 ft) in length. The existing bridge roadway width is 5.2 m (17
ft). The proposed cross section of the replacement bridge is 9.1 m (30 ft) wide. The
existing bridge is composed entirely of timber and steel and will result in no temporary
fill due to bridge demolition debris. This project can be classified as Case 3, where there
are no special restrictions beyond those outlined in Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters and Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal. Approximately 0.07 ha (0.18 ac) of wetlands will be impacted by this project.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not
anticipate requesting an individual permit, but propose to proceed under a Nationwide
Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November 22, 1991 by
the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these
regulations will be followed in the construction of the project.
The NCDOT requests that you review this work for authorization under
Nationwide Permit No. 23 and Nationwide Permit No. 33. It is anticipated that 401
General Certification No. 3107 (Approved Categorical Exclusions) and General
Certification No. 3114 (Temporary Construction, Access, and Dewatering) will apply to
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
{
1, .
this project, and the attached information is being provided to the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their
review.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Mr. Matt
Haney at [phone] ext. 333.
Sincerely,
/? I c-, /? ?-
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc:
Mr. David Franklin, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Garland Pardue, USFWS, Raleigh
Mr. N.L. Graf, P.E., FHWA
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E. Program Development Branch
Mr. Timothy V. Rountree, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. A.L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Bill Rosser, P.E., Division 8 Engineer
Mr. Wayne Elliott, PD&EA

Richmond County
Bridge No. 90 on SR 1148
Over Mountain Creek
Federal Project BRZ-1148(2)
State Project 8.2580701
TIP # B-3026
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AND PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
7 29=98 ? ? ??
Date ;,William Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
-7_29-W W? / , 0 ?
Date Ni olas Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Richmond County
Bridge No. 90 on SR 1148
Over Mountain Creek
Federal Project BRZ-1148(2)
State Project 8.2580701
TIP # B-3026
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
July 1998
Documentation Prepared in
Planning and Environmental Branch By:
/4 -"?L -2 - 9
Jeff n
Pro ect Tanning gineer
{/V CL y
Wayne Elliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
QpOEESS/wkq% ?s
ti
SEAL -
6976
:r
•?
•?,,?PRN???,`,
Richmond County
Bridge No. 90 on SR 1148
Over Mountain Creek
Federal Project BRZ-1148(2)
State Project 8.2580701
TIP # B-3026
Bridge No. 90 is located in Richmond County on SR 1148 crossing over
Mountain Creek. It is programmed in the 1998-2004 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) as a bridge replacement project. This project is part of the Federal Aid
Bridge Replacement Program and has been classified as a "Categorical Exclusion". No
substantial environmental impacts are expected.
I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 90 will be replaced on new alignment to the north as recommended in
Alternate 3 with a bridge approximately 64 meters (210 feet) in length and 9.1 meters
(30 feet) in width. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during construction.
The new bridge will provide two 3.3 meter (11 foot) lanes with 1.2 meter (4 foot)
shoulders, and include 1370 millimeter (54 inch) bicycle safe bridge rail. The approaches
will include two 3.3 meter (11 foot) lanes and 2.4 meter (8 foot) shoulders, including
1.2 meter (4 foot) wide paved shoulders for bicycle safety. The shoulders will widen to
3.3 meters (11 feet) where guardrail is required. Total project length will be
approximately 610 meters (2000 feet). Based on preliminary design work, the design
speed for the permanent alignment will be 100 km/h (60 mph).
The estimated cost of the project is $ 834,000 including $ 800,000 in construction
costs and $ 34,000 in right of way costs. The estimated cost shown in the 1998-2004 TIP
is $ 460,000.
II. SUMMARY OF PROJECT COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. All practical Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be
included and properly maintained during project construction. "Design Standards in
Sensitive Watersheds" will be adhered to throughout design and construction.
Borrow/waste areas will not be located in wetlands.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge
of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States."
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality
General Certification will be obtained prior to issuance of the Section 404 permit.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will adhere to the following
commitments so as not to adversely affect the North Carolina Wildlife Resource
Commission (NCWRC) owned Grassy Island Boating Access Area on Blewett Falls
Lake:
The boating access area must remain open and usable during the construction of
the new bridge. This may necessitate the construction of a new or temporary
access road. For any construction (new or modification), Mr. Gordon Myers,
Chief of NCWRC Division of Engineering Services, should be contacted (919-
715-3155 ext. 276) for a review of the plans prior to construction.
2. The boating access area will not be available for the contractor to use as a staging
area.
3. Any construction equipment or structures that could pose a navigational hazard
must be clearly marked and have appropriate lighting at night so as not to be a
safety hazard to boaters.
III. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
NCDOT does not anticipate any design exceptions will be likely.
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1148 is classified as a Rural Local Route in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. Traffic volume is currently 300 vehicles per day (VPD) and is
projected to be 500 VPD in the year 2020. There is no posted speed limit on this section
of SR 1148. Just northwest of the bridge, SR 1148 serves a boat ramp that provides
access to Blewett Falls Lake. One school bus crosses the bridge twice daily.
The existing bridge was completed in 1958. It is 49 meters (161 feet) long.
There are approximately 5.8 meters (19 feet) of vertical clearance between the bridge
deck and streambed. The two travel lanes provide 5.2 meters (17 feet) of bridge roadway
width. This section of SR 1148 is on a mapped and signed bicycle route.
According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of the
bridge is 20.9 out of a possible 100. Presently the bridge is posted 17 tons for single
vehicles and 23 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers (TTST's).
The horizontal and vertical alignments of the roadway near the bridge are both
fair. The pavement width on the approaches to the bridge is 5.5 meters (18 feet).
Shoulders on the approaches to the bridge are approximately 1.8 meters (6 feet) wide.
The Traffic Engineering Branch indicates that no accidents have been reported
within the last three years in the vicinity of the project.
2
V. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
There are three "build" options considered in this document. They are as follows:
Alternate 1 would replace Bridge No. 90 on the existing alignment with a bridge
approximately 64 meters (210 feet) in length. Traffic would be detoured along surrounding
roads during construction.
Alternate 2 would replace Bridge No. 90 on the existing alignment with a bridge
approximately 64 meters (210 feet) in length. Traffic would be maintained during
construction using a temporary detour alignment to the south of the existing bridge. This
temporary alignment would include a bridge approximately 42.7 meters (140 feet) in
length.
Alternate 3 would replace Bridge No. 90 on new alignment to the north with a
bridge approximately 64 meters (210 feet) in length. Traffic would maintained on the
existing bridge during construction.
"Do-nothing" is not practical, requiring the eventual closing of the road as the
existing bridge completely deteriorates. Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating
bridge is neither practical nor economical.
VI. ESTIMATED COST
COMPONENT ALTERNATEI ALTERNATE2 ALTERNATE3
New Bridge Structure $ 378,000 $ 378,000 $ 378,000
Bridge Removal 20,000 20,000 20,000
Roadway & Approaches 66,000 66,000 130,000
Temporary Detour 0 182,000 0
Mobilization & Miscellaneous 136,000 194,000 162,000
Engineering & Contingencies 100,000 135,000 110,000

Total Construction $ 700,000 $ 975,000 $ 800,000
Right of Way $ 17,000 $ 31,000 $ 34,000
Total Cost $ 717,000 $ 1,006,000 $ 834,000
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 90 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 3 with a bridge
approximately 64 meters (210 feet) in length on new alignment to the north. Traffic will
be maintained on the existing bridge during construction.
The new bridge will provide two 3.3 meter (11 foot) lanes with 1.2 meter (4 foot)
shoulders, and include 1370 millimeter (54 inch) bicycle safe bridge rail. The approaches
will include two 3.3 meter (11 foot) lanes and 2.4 meter (8 foot) shoulders, including
1.2 meter (4 foot) wide paved shoulders for bicycle safety. The shoulders will widen to
3.3 meters (11 feet) where guardrail is required. Total project length will be
approximately 610 meters (2000 feet). Based on preliminary design work, the design
speed for the permanent alignment will be 100 km/h (60 mph).
Road user analysis indicates that vehicles routinely using SR 1148 would
experience a travel cost increase of approximately $ 195,000 during project construction.
This cost is based on 300 vehicles per day traveling an average additional distance of
approximately 12.8 kilometers (8 miles) for a nine month construction period.
Comparing this user cost to the $ 117,000 additional cost of the recommended alternate
which maintains traffic on site, results in a benefit-cost ratio of approximately 1.7.
Therefore, from a road user analysis perspective, maintenance of traffic is economically
justified.
The division engineer recommends maintenance of traffic on site. It is important
that the boat ramp and lake access just north of the bridge remain open and easily
accessible at all times, as it is one of very few access points to Blewett Falls Lake. The
NCWRC also recommends that traffic be maintained so that access to the boat ramp and
lake is not hindered.
All of the alternates will affect minor amounts of wetlands, with Alternate 2
having the most potential impact (approximately 0.07 hectares [0.18 acres]). Alternate 3,
involving probable construction on steep and rocky slopes, appears to have the greatest
potential for sediment discharges. With the exception of certain wetlands, most of the
study corridors consist of land types and communities whose loss or modification will not
be highly substantial in the long-term. There are no substantial species or natural
communities present in the project area. Except for wetland impacts and problems with
sediment discharge, there appear to be no other potentially substantial impacts to biotic
diversity or natural communities that would occur as a result of construction of this
project.
NCDOT recommends Alternate 3 because it is the most economical alternate that
avoids road closure. It also maintains traffic and access to the boat ramp throughout
construction and will affect no substantial species or natural communities.
4
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. GENERAL
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of the
existing inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
This project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope
and insignificant environmental consequences.
This bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality
of the human or natural environment by implementing the environmental commitments
listed in Section II of this document in addition to use of current NCDOT standards and
specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning
regulation. No change in land use is expected to result from construction of this project.
There are no hazardous waste impacts.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. There will be no
relocatees. Right-of-way acquisition will be limited.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not
expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The Grassy Island Boating Access Area just northwest of the bridge is owned by
the NCWRC. Given that the project commitments are adhered to, the NCWRC has
determined that the project will not adversely affect the recreational area.
The proposed bridge replacement project will not raise the existing flood levels or
have any substantial adverse effect on the existing floodplain.
There are no utilities in the vicinity of the bridge.
B. AIR AND NOISE
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.
The project is located in Richmond County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR part 51 is not
applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is
not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will not
have substantial impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during
construction.
C. LAND USE & FARMLAND EFFECTS
The project is located in a heavily forested region near the Pee Dee River. The
river in this region is part of the Blewett Falls Hydroelectric Project. The project area is
heavily wooded and undeveloped. There are no urbanized land uses in the project area.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their
representatives to consider the impacts of land acquisition and construction projects on
prime and important farmland soils. The proposed bridge replacement will not impact
prime farmland. The project will result in the conversion of a small amount of land but
the area to be converted is wooded and void of agricultural uses.
D. HISTORICAL EFFECTS & ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS
Upon review of area photographs, aerial photographs, and cultural resources
databases, the State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) has indicated that they "are
aware of no historic structures located within the area of potential effect." They therefore
recommend no historic architectural surveys be conducted.
The State Office of Archaeology (SOA) knows of no archaeological sites within
the proposed project area. Based on 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. Therefore, the SOA
recommends that no archaeological investigations be conducted.
E. NATURAL RESOURCES
Geology
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
The project area lies within the Carolina Slate Belt. This region of metamorphic
rocks consists of metamudstone and meta-argillite, interbedded with metasandstone,
metaconglomerate, and metavolcanic rock. There are outcroppings of these rocks on a
cut slope on the west end of the study corridor.
Physiography and Soils
The project vicinity in Richmond County is located in the Piedmont
physiographic region in south-central North Carolina. The landscape is distinctly hilly
consisting of highly dissected and irregular ridges, except for the broad bottomlands of
the Pee Dee River, much of which are now under reservoir. Major drainageways are
dendritic, and there are only small and narrow floodplains associated with the larger
tributary streams of the Pee Dee River in this region. Elevations range from about
46 meters (150 feet) above Mean Sea Level (MSL) at the mean water level in the
reservoir to 110 meters (360 feet) above MSL on the tops of some of the nearby ridges.
The spillway at Blewett Falls Dam is 53 meters (174 feet) above MSL.
The soils of the project area appear to be mostly Chewacla loam in the floodplains
and Goldston-Badin complex on the slopes. The Chewacla series is a deep floodplain
soil that is somewhat poorly drained, but moderately permeable. It forms in recent
alluvium on first bottoms, on 0-2% slopes, and it is frequently flooded. Goldston-Badin
complex consists of well-drained acid soils on gently sloping to steep uplands (15-55%),
and they are derived from fine-grained materials in residuum. The tops of the ridges are
Uwharrie-Badin complex soils, but none of these occur in the project area. Some
Riverview loam, an occasionally flooded soil on higher parts of floodplains may occur
above the Chewacla soil in the project vicinity.
No hydric soils are mapped in the project area or vicinity. The Chewacla series is
listed as a soil unit that may have poorly drained hydric soil inclusions in depressions.
Soil cores taken in the floodplain area revealed a variety of soil types, varying from
coarse sands, to mottled clays, to gleyed mucks. Hydric soil features are present in most
areas of the floodplain, suggesting extensive wetlands.
Water Resources
The project vicinity lies in sub-basin 03-07-10 of the lower drainage area of the
Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. The sub-basin includes stream systems on both sides of the
Yadkin-Pee Dee River. There are eight sub-basins in this drainage area which
encompasses 4506 square kilometers (2,639 square miles) and includes the Rocky and
Little River watersheds. Mountain Creek is a lesser tributary of the Pee Dee River,
draining the next substantial watershed downstream of the Little River on the north side
of the Pee Dee River. Mountain Creek is formed at the confluence of Big Mountain
Creek and Little Mountain Creek, approximately 8 kilometers (5 miles) upstream of its
mouth in Blewett Falls Lake. The project area lies about 305 meters (1000 feet) upstream
of the mouth. The water resource Index No. for the affected stream reach of Mountain
Creek is 13-28-(4). Blewett Falls Dam is situated about 9.3 kilometers (5.8 miles)
downstream of the project area.
The project area is aligned perpendicular to Mountain Creek in a northwesterly to
southeasterly direction on the north side of Blewett Falls Lake. Mountain Creek flows in
a southwesterly direction to its mouth in the lake, where the Pee Dee River takes a
southerly course. There are no small perennial or intermittent streams in the project area.
Mountain Creek should receive most of the runoff from the roadway and construction
activity. Some of the project area may drain directly into the lake.
7
A large wetland complex occurs in the project vicinity adjacent to Blewett Falls
Lake. A variety of sloughs, depressions, islands, and backwater areas, including forests,
emergent wetlands and scrub-shrub thickets, exists in the floodplain of the Pee Dee River
and Mountain Creek. Only a small part of these wetlands is in the project area.
Stream Characteristics
Mountain Creek is a low-gradient entrenched Piedmont stream. Such a stream
can be characterized as follows: deep; turbid; minimum flows over 30 cubic feet per
second (cfs); warm summer temperatures; bottoms of silt, muck and boulders; and
generally over 15 meters (50 feet) in width. These streams are generally the larger and
slow-moving rivers of the Coastal Plain and Piedmont. However, the average width of
Mountain Creek is approximately only 7.6 meters (25 feet).
Mountain Creek in the project area is clearly influenced by the backwater effects
of Blewett Falls Lake. At the time of the site visit, the active stream at the bridge was 19
meters (64 feet) in width, but the elevated stream level appeared to be 31 meters (101
feet) in width, suggesting a wide range in stream dimensions. However, the stream width
was considerably larger above the bridge, outside of the project area. Below the bridge,
the channel is not well-defined, but above the bridge the channel is about 27 meters (90
feet) in width. Streambanks are mostly very low or they rise very gently to the floodplain
in most areas. North of the boating access area, there are well-defined banks
approximately 0.9 meters (3.0 feet) in height, and the active stream was bank to bank.
Around the bridge, the bank to bank width is narrower, and exposed flats were present on
the eastern shore near the bridge. Near the bridge, the average depth was about 0.6
meters (2.0 feet), except near the shores, but a channel under the bridge and around the
boat ramp was over 1.2 meters (4.0 feet) deep. The substrates appear to be mostly muds
and silts, with a few isolated large rocks. In spots, the substrate is a silty gravel.
Considerable amounts of leaf and twig litter are settled on the bottom. The current speed
was barely perceptible at the time of the visit. The waters were clear, but dark and
stained. Some coarse woody debris is collected under the bridge, and leaf piles are
present elsewhere.
The floodplain of Mountain Creek is fairly narrow, except from the bridge to the
mouth where it widens considerably before entering the Pee Dee River. Numerous debris
piles are evident. Flooding appears to occur regularly. The entire floodplain was covered
with silt deposits, and high water marks were evident on the trees.
Best Usage Classification
Mountain Creek, from its mouth in the Pee Dee River in Blewett Falls Lake to a
point 1.8 kilometers (1.1 miles) upstream is classified as Class "WS-IV CA". Upstream
of that point, the stream classification is "WS-IV." Blewett Falls Lake in this region is
"WS-IV&B CA."
8
WS-IV waters are defined as follows: "waters protected as water supplies which
are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds; point source discharges of
treated wastewater are permitted pursuant to Rules ... (of Subchapter 2B of the
Administrative Code); local programs to control nonpoint sources and stormwater
discharges of pollution shall be required; suitable for all Class C uses."
Class B streams are "freshwaters protected for primary recreation which includes
swimming on a frequent or organized basis and all Class C uses."
Class C streams are "freshwaters protected for secondary recreation, fishing,
aquatic life including propagation and survival, and wildlife." This is the lowest
freshwater classification; all freshwaters receive this classification at a minimum. All
unnamed tributaries carry the same classification as the streams to which they are
tributary.
"CA" refers to a critical area, "the area adjacent to a water supply intake or
reservoir where risk associated with pollution is greater than from the remaining portions
of the watershed." The Richmond County water intake is just above Blewett Falls Dam.
Water Quality
Mountain Creek is one of the two largest tributaries in the sub-basin, until
recently, there were no chemical and/or biological classifications [from stations for
chemical and physical (AMS or ambient monitoring system) and/or benthic
macroinvertebrate (BMAN) samplings available for Mountain Creek or any of its
tributaries in the watershed or in this part of the sub-basin on the east side of the Pee Dee
River. However, a macroinvertebrate sample and a fish community assessment were
collected on Mountain Creek in August 1996 and April 1996, respectively, because there
were no prior data for the stream. The sample site was approximately 4.8 kilometers
(3.0 miles) upstream of the project area. Mountain Creek received an Excellent
bioclassification and is reported to have good flows during the summer, unlike other
major streams in the sub-basin (i.e. Brown Creek) which have coastal plain characteristics
and very low summer flows. The fish community assessment yielded a Good-Excellent
rating. Mountain Creek was one of only six streams in the Yadkin Basin with such a high
rating.
The nearest downstream station is on the Pee Dee River near Rockingham. It
received a Good-Fair biological rating in 1990 and an overall rating of
Support-Threatened with non-point pollution sources. Blewett Falls Lake was last
sampled for chemical and physical data in 1994, with the results indicating eutrophic
conditions, but the lake's uses for fish consumption, aquatic and secondary recreation,
swimming, and drinking water supply were determined to be fully supported. Sampling
of fish tissues in Blewett Falls Lake in 1996 revealed mercury levels exceeding FDA and
EPA criteria in one sample.
9
There are no metropolitan areas or large towns in the sub-basin; consequently,
there are no dischargers in the sub-basin with permitted flows greater than or equal to 0.5
MGD. There are only eight permitted dischargers in the sub-basin, all of which are
permitted at <0.5 MGD.
Anticipated Water Resource Impacts
There are no water quality data to indicate whether Mountain Creek in the project
area is presently supporting its designated uses. However, data for Blewett Falls Lake
indicate that its uses are being supported.
It is well-known that water quality can be impacted by highway construction
activity; substantial pollution discharges are possible, particularly when roads, culverts,
and bridges are constructed. Construction impacts can degrade waters, with pollutants
and sediment loads affecting water quality from a biological and chemical standpoint.
Because of the generally acute sensitivity of aquatic organisms to discharges and inputs
derived from highway construction, appropriate measures must be taken to avoid spillage,
control runoff, and reduce or eliminate stream disturbances. These measures must
include an erosion and sediment control plan, provisions for waste materials and storage,
storm water management measures, and appropriate road maintenance measures. Best
Management Practices must be employed consistently.
The table below summarizes potential water resource impacts. The Mountain
Creek crossing is the only surface water resource that will be impacted directly by bridge
construction. Wetlands will also be affected. The estimates presented in the table are
based on measurements during a low water level period, and describe only the areas in
the study corridor.
There could be impacts to jurisdictional wetlands other than those of the riverine
system of Mountain Creek. The project area lies at the edge of a large floodplain, and
many sites meet the definition of jurisdictional wetlands. Potential indirect impacts to
offsite wetlands and the waters of Blewett Falls Lake also must be considered.
Water resources potential impacts.
Alt.I Alt.2 Alt.3
Mountain Creek crossing
0.04 hectare 0.05 hectare 0.04 hectare
(0.09 acre) (0.13 acre) (0.09 acre)
Wetlands 0.04 hectare 0.07 hectare 0.04 hectare
(0.10 acre) (0.18 acre) (0.10 acre)
10
Construction of this project should not modify the flow of Mountain Creek,
certainly not much more than it has already been modified through past construction of
the existing bridge and the boating access area. Streams can be crossed effectively, and
with minimal impact, with application of appropriate construction techniques and bridge
and culvert designs. Careful design should avoid the necessity of any stream relocation.
Erosion control measures will be necessary to protect the stream, and all instream
activities should be scheduled during low flow periods. When the old bridge is removed,
similar precautions will be necessary to reduce potential impacts.
There will be some unavoidable negative impacts on the vegetative cover that
protects streams. Increased light levels will result in higher stream temperatures and
modified species composition in affected stream reaches. Removal of streamside forest
affects sediment flux, chemical and biological transformations, food availability, habitat
structure, and dissolved oxygen availability. Sediment deposition will adversely affect
aquatic organisms.
The project, as described, will not impact any waters classified ORW
(Outstanding Resource Waters), HQW (High Quality Waters), WS-1 (water supplies in
natural watersheds), or WS-II (water supplies in predominantly undeveloped watersheds).
The project does not lie within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile) of such resources.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
The biota and natural and secondary communities are mostly typical of the Inner
Piedmont Ecoregion, with the exception that a large unusual wetland ecosystem lies in
the vicinity adjacent to the project area. No other unusual or especially substantial
elements were located during the field investigation, as noted below. Only common
names are used in the discussion below after the scientific name is first introduced.
Plant Communities and Land Types
In the project area, the original upland vegetation appears to have consisted
predominantly of Dry Oak--Hickory Forest on upper flats and ridge tops, Dry-Mesic
Oak--Hickory Forest on the slopes, and Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest on north-facing
slopes. The original vegetation of the floodplain was likely Piedmont Bottomland Forest
and Piedmont Swamp Forest. However, most of the land surface is no longer covered in
the original vegetation. All forests are second-growth or young cutovers. There are only
remnant scattered large trees, or small pockets of larger trees. Some of the communities
are in a low state of succession or are artificially maintained.
Community descriptions are based on observations derived from the general
vegetation in and near the project area. The types with the greatest coverage in the study
corridor, and which potentially could receive the heaviest impacts from project
construction are Alluvial Forest [0.35 hectares (0.87 acres)], Upland Forest [0.22 hectares
(0.54 acres)], and Maintained Roadside [0.19 hectare (0.46 acres)].
For purposes of description, relative importance and abundance of each species
are indicated by a standard terminology. In order of decreasing importance and
abundance, the following terms are used: dominant, abundant, common (frequent),
uncommon (infrequent, occasional), rare. Uncommon and rare species are sometimes
described as being present only. Each stratum in a vegetated community is usually
treated separately. Sometimes, only a general statement about relative importance is
given, e.g., important or not important.
For purposes of discussion and quantification, eight communities and land types
are recognized in the study corridor. These are divided into three groups: Natural
Communities, Maintained Communities, and Developed Land Types. Some of the
substantial wetland communities adjacent to the study corridor are also described.
Natural Communities
Upland Forest. There is considerable variation in this community, depending on
the disturbance history and the slope aspect. In most areas, Virginia pine and sweetgum
are the most abundant trees. Chestnut oak, northern red oak, winged elm, and red cedar
occur frequently. Sweetgum and northern red oak were the largest trees in this
community, some about 41 centimeters (16 inches) dbh. Loblolly pine and American
holly are uncommon. Tree species that occur only rarely include pignut hickory, black
cherry, slippery elm, and redbud. There are small transgressives of river birch, red maple,
sassafras, hackberry, black locust, and red mulberry. In one area, Virginia pine was
dominant, and sweetgum and red maple comprised the understory.
On one north slope, large white oak were abundant, and loblolly pine, Virginia
pine, sweetgum, red maple, water oak, and southern red oak were common. Sourwood
and tuliptree were present, while red cedar was less common than in the other areas.
Shrubs and woody vines are diverse but not abundant. Yellow jessamine is most
abundant. Sparkleberry and Japanese honeysuckle are infrequent. Other species that are
merely present include privet, St. Andrew's cross, mountain laurel, poison ivy,
muscadine, crossvine, trumpet creeper, bristly greenbrier, and common greenbrier.
Fringetree was present in the north slope community, where many of the other shrubs and
vines were absent or less important.
No species were especially common in the herb stratum. Tick-trefoil was most
common. Those which occurred occasionally included witchgrass, little bluestem,
goldenrods, wingstem, sericea, and ebony spleenwort. Several other taxa present were
golden-aster, pipsissewa, fennel, foxglove, aster, wild rye, plume grass, and Christmas
fern. There were not as many herb taxa present in the north slope communities, but
rattlesnake-root was present there.
12
Alluvial Forest. Because of disturbance history and effects of flooding from the
reservoir, the floodplain forest was classified only as Piedmont Alluvial Forest, and not
further distinguished. Common to abundant species in the canopy were loblolly pine,
sweetgum, and green ash. Some of the loblolly pines and sweetgums were quite large.
Somewhat less common species were river birch, red maple, winged elm, slippery elm,
sycamore, and black willow locally. Other taxa present in this community were red
mulberry, flowering dogwood, ironwood, willow oak, red cedar, cottonwood, and
boxelder. Small transgressives of hackberry and black locust were present.
Shrubs and woody vines were quite diverse and abundant in this community.
Those species that were common to abundant included trumpet creeper, common
greenbrier, possum haw, and arrowwood. Poison ivy, Japanese honeysuckle, grape, silky
dogwood, and climbing dogbane were frequent. Other taxa present included privet, St.
Andrew's cross, muscadine, crossvine, elderberry, alder, and common blackberry.
Herbaceous species were somewhat less important in this community than in the
upland communities. River oats, clearweed, and ground ivy were locally abundant.
Gama grass was locally common. Dotted smartweed and small white aster were
common. Other taxa that were present included frost aster, goldenrod, wingstem, sedge,
wild rye, plume grass, cutleaf coneflower, spiderwort, bugleweed, and common
grapefern.
Upland Thicket. Much of this community is developed on fill slopes. The site
of a former structure is also described here. Some of the thickets merge into floodplain
communities and are not easily distinguished. Sweetgum saplings are frequent; saplings
of green ash, black cherry, and redbud rarely occur. Elderberry and common blackberry
are common to abundant. Common woody vines are trumpet creeper and Japanese
honeysuckle. Alder and grape are present. Japanese grass was abundant, and wingstem
was very common. Purple-top grass was common; goldenrods were uncommon; and sida
was present.
The site of the former structure is rather open, but beginning to form thickets.
There are several large water oaks and Virginia pines present. Transgressives from the
surrounding forest trees are common. Winged sumac and boxelder were present.
Brazilian vervain was the dominant herb on the site. Japanese grass was abundant.
Asters, sericea, and goldenrods were common. Dog fennel and day lily were present.
Stream. Several species were found occurring immersed in the water of the
stream, but only infrequently. These same species also occurred on recently exposed
muddy flats and shores. Those identified included false-pimpernel, swamp smartweed,
and hairy bittercress. One other taxon with finely dissected compound leaves could not
be positively identified.
Riparian Fringe. This is a fairly distinct community type developed on the
shores of Mountain Creek and on flats adjacent to the stream that are clearly inundated at
13
certain times of the year. Apparently, the water level of Blewett Falls Lake fluctuates
considerably, and this phenomenon influences the level of the water in Mountain Creek
as well. Black willow is abundant in the highest zones. Seedlings of cottonwood occur
occasionally on the exposed areas. Smartweed is dominant, and dotted smartweed and
clearweed are abundant. Many other taxa are present in these areas, including several
weedy species. Those species present were wild lettuce, pokeweed, swamp smartweed,
hairy bittercress, Brazilian vervain, common reed, buttonweed, marsh seedbox, false
nettle, climbing hempweed, cinnamon vine, ditch saxifrage, panic grass, bulrush, thinleaf
flatsedge, false pimpernel, yerba de tajo, slender St. John's wort, and sensitive fern.
Maintained Communities
Maintained Roadside. This is a community maintained in a low state of
succession by regular mowing or bush-hogging. It includes the shoulders and adjacent
storm ditches and cut/fill banks. The community is variously grass or forb dominated,
depending on the location. The berm areas are the most regularly maintained, while
roadbanks are maintained less frequently. The dominant grass was crabgrass. Common
grasses were dallis grass, Japanese grass, and nimble-will. Dayflower, goldenrod, and
fennel were common forbs. Wahlenbergia, a rare occurrence in North Carolina, was
common locally on a barren roadbank. A large variety of other grasses and forbs were
present , including frost aster, ragweed , English plantain, tick-trefoil, beggar-ticks, dog
fennel, rabbit tobacco, chickweed, three-seeded mercury, partridge pea, bushclover, sheep
sorrel, smartweed, richardia, violet, plume grass, purple-top grass, fescue, dropseed,
purple lovegrass, little bluestem, field garlic, and sedge. Japanese honeysuckle was a
common vine throughout, and Virginia creeper was a rare occurrence. Woody
transgressives occurred in some of the roadside ditches. There were a few patches of
mosses and some bare ground locally.
Developed Land Types
Paved Roadway. This category includes all of the paved road surface, except the
portion on the bridge.
Gravel Access Area. This category includes the entrance to the boating access
area and some of the parking lot. A couple large trees, notably river birch and sweetgum
are included.
Communities Adjacent to the Study Corridor
Vast areas south of the road and study area in the floodplain of the Pee Dee River
have developed into emergent and scrub-shrub wetland communities. Small areas of
alluvial forest separate these areas from the riparian fringe communities of the study area.
Elevational zonation is evident, and many obligate wetland species are present. These
areas are definitely a part of the local ecological landscape and are influenced by
activities in the study corridor.
14
Emergent marshes occupy huge sloughs and broad depressions. Common reed is
a dominant plant, particularly on the fringes of these marshes. Buttonbush and dotted
smartweed are common species on the rim. Climbing hempweed is present on the rim.
Elsewhere, in lower areas, lizard's tail, rosemallow, and false nettle are present. Black
willow is dominant in local pronounced depressions. Several of the species from the
previously described riparian fringe community are also present. Large bare sections
were devoid of vegetation at the time of the study, these apparently lying under open
waters at other times of the year. The substrates were mucky only in the lowest areas at
the time of the site visit. An old stream channel, now containing mostly emergent
wetland species, is situated diagonally northwest from the study corridor toward one of
these large marshy areas.
Terrestrial Fauna
The wildlife and other fauna are less easily observed than the flora of an area
without special efforts being expended. Evidence of the typical fauna is sought through
habitat evaluation, casual sightings, and observation of sounds, tracks, scats, dens, and
other indirect evidence. Studies of range distributions are also important in estimating
the expected fauna of a given area.
There is only moderate diversity and interspersion of habitat types in the project
area, but they are extensive in their development. The habitat types of most extensive
area are alluvial forest, upland forest, and marshes. Except for the open sloughs, marshes
and backwaters, virtually all of the remainder of the project vicinity is forested. The
stream and riparian system are also important, but not as extensive. Many of the habitat
types are large and contiguous, though only a small part may be within the project area.
Habitat types as units are generally large and not fragmented.
Overall, animal diversity is expected to be high because of the good mix of habitat
types and ecotonal areas and the types of habitats that are present. The landscape
diversity in the area is judged to be generally good for birds of a variety of habitats,
particularly those requiring the interiors of large unbroken forests and large wetland
systems. Avian fauna were found to be abundant, but not especially diverse, possibly due
to the season of the year during which the site was studied. The distinct array of reptiles,
birds and mammals that frequent lentic environments is expected to be important in the
project area because of the extensive open water marshes and Blewett Falls Lake. The
large stream system should provide excellent habitat for a number of animals. The lack
of human development in the vicinity should allow the presence of many species that are
intolerant of human intrusion and that require large expanses of natural communities.
The primary human presence is due to through traffic on the road and use of the boating
access facility. It is noted that the access area is apparently a popular point of departure
for hunters who use the gamelands in the area.
15
Based on available habitat, animals are here divided into five general groups.
Four are mostly expected in a specific habitat type, and the fifth is considered somewhat
ubiquitous in a number of terrestrial habitats. The specific habitat groups are as follows:
more open areas, consisting mostly of maintained roadsides and the open riparian fringes;
intermediate habitats, consisting of thickets, marshes, and most ecotones; forest; and
aquatic or very wet habitats, in lakes, sloughs and streams.
Lists of the expected fauna of the project area, given the evidence available and
the human population density and development, are given below. Without direct
observation or documentation that certain animal species occur in an area, the safest
prediction that can be made is that the most common species for a particular region will
be those found in a project area if appropriate habitat is available. Hence, the following
lists may not be particularly informative, and the same suite of taxa might be constructed
for other regions with minor exceptions.
Those generally ubiquitous amphibians are American toad, Fowler's toad, upland
chorus frog, and spring peeper. The abundant forested and non-forested wetlands and wet
spots in the project area appear to be good habitat for cricket frogs, eastern spadefoot
toad, and eastern narrowmouth toad. Treefrogs should be common, particularly in the
alluvial forest. The eastern newt, the slimy salamander, and the three-lined salamander
are expected in the moister forest habitats and bottoms. The mud salamander is expected
in mucky areas. Ambystomid salamanders are expected because there are likely suitable
breeding pools in the area.
Among the widely distributed reptiles, those occurring here probably include the
five-lined skink, rat snake, rough green snake, earth snake, and copperhead. The eastern
hognose snake might be expected in some of the more open areas having friable soils. In
intermediate habitats, likely occurrences include Carolina anole, eastern fence lizard,
eastern garter snake, and eastern milk snake. Typical reptiles expected in the forested
habitats are eastern box turtle, ground skink, brown snake, redbelly snake, ringneck
snake, and worm snake.
The avifauna that typically characterize open areas are expected to be few in
number but would probably include American kestrel, turkey vulture, mourning dove,
field sparrow, common grackle, American robin, and grasshopper sparrow. Birds in
intermediate areas include song sparrow, brown thrasher, gray catbird, northern
mockingbird, American goldfinch, indigo bunting, common yellowthroat, and
white-throated sparrow. Forest species include various wood warblers, pine warbler,
wood thrush, tufted titmouse, barred owl, pileated woodpecker, summer tanager, eastern
phoebe, red-eyed vireo, American redstart, and blue-gray gnatcatcher. Species ranging
through many habitats include red-shouldered hawk, eastern screech owl, American crow,
northern cardinal, Carolina wren, yellow-billed cuckoo, blue jay, rufous-sided towhee,
red-bellied woodpecker, downy woodpecker, common flicker, and Carolina chickadee.
Green heron, great blue heron, and belted kingfisher are expected utilizing the stream
system and the open marshy areas. Red-winged blackbirds are expected in the marshes.
16
Wood duck should be present, and other ducks and shorebirds should use the sloughs,
exposed flats, and marshes in the appropriate season. (However, the NCWRC District
Wildlife Biologist reported that there is very little usage of this area by waterfowl, in
spite of the seemingly good habitat.)
Mammals of open and intermediate habitats include southeastern shrew, least
shrew, long-tailed weasel, eastern harvest mouse, meadow vole, and hispid cotton rat.
Those ranging into forests as well as open and intermediate habitats are southern
short-tailed shrew, eastern mole, striped skunk, gray fox, white-footed mouse, and eastern
cottontail. Species usually shunning open areas, but in the intermediate and forested
areas, include opossum and golden mouse. Several kinds of bats, such as eastern
pipistrelle, Seminole bat, and red bat are expected to be common, foraging over the
stream and forests. Species that occur mostly in forests include raccoon, southern flying
squirrel, gray squirrel, and evening bat. Muskrat and mink should be common in the
riparian areas and wetlands. Hunters reported that white-tailed deer, a typically
mid-successional species, are found in the area and are commonly sought.
Aquatic Life
Redbreast sunfish, various catfish, carp, and white perch are commonly caught in
this lower section of the creek, while largemouth bass, crappie, and other sunfishes are
also found in the creek.
Unidentified minnows were the only fish observed during the study. Other taxa
that are present probably include suckers, gizzard shad, longnose gar, and various
cyprinids, including creek chub.
No aquatic amphibians were observed, but the stream and adjacent habitat should
support two-lined salamander, northern dusky salamander, bullfrog, green frog, and
pickerel frog.
The habitat should be suitable for several turtle species, including snapping turtle,
river cooter, and yellowbelly slider. Northern water snake, queen snake, and eastern
ribbon snake are the most likely water snakes of the area.
Chimneys of crayfish were noted in the swampy areas. Whirligig beetles were the
only aquatic insects noted.
Anticipated Biotic Resource Impacts
Terrestrial Systems
Alternates 2 and 3 would affect the greatest land area, approximately 0.7 hectares
(1.7 acres) of the 1.1 hectares (2.7 acres) in the study corridor. Alternate 1 would only
affect 0.4 hectares (1.0 acre). Natural communities, e.g., forested areas, would be more
17
severely impacted with Alternates 2 and 3, approximately 0.33 hectares (0.82 acres).
Alternate 1 would only affect 0.15 hectares (0.38 acres). Alternate 2 would affect
0.27 hectares (0.67 acres) of Alluvial Forest, the most of the three alternates. The
alternates are nearly equal with respect to the effect on the stream and the riparian
wetlands, about 0.04 hectares (0.1 acres).
The habitat type of greatest extent in the project area is Alluvial Forest, but
Upland Forest is most important outside of the project area. Regardless of the alternate,
only about one-third of the affected area is maintained and developed land types. Natural
communities will receive the greatest impacts. With the exception of the roadside
community and some thickets (portions completely destroyed), mostly only the edges of
other communities will be affected. Habitat losses should be minimal, with a reduction
only in small part of the total natural habitat in the project area.
The data in the following tables suggest only the potential direct impacts on land
and community types due to construction. It is likely that the actual impacts to biotic
communities will be less than those indicated, because the calculations are based on study
corridor limits, rather than construction limits (which are not known at this time).
The amount of direct loss of habitat for animal species will depend on the
alternate selected and how much of the study corridor is actually utilized in construction.
There will be no net loss of habitat for small animal species and predators and scavengers
that utilize open areas such as roadsides and thickets. There will be a reduction in the
available habitat for animals that require forest, the amount lost depending on the
alternate selected. Some of the communities will re-establish themselves following
construction.
Other indirect effects on wildlife population levels and habitat value should not
change substantially. Mortality rates for all species due to road kills should not increase.
The riparian zone of the creek is important habitat and likely an important corridor for
animal movement. The existing roadway already disrupts natural corridor movement, so
bridge replacement will not introduce a substantially new factor, except during the
construction phases of the project.
Area estimates of community and land types located in study corridor.
hectares acres
Upland Forest 0.22 0.54
Alluvial Forest 0.35 0.87
Upland Thicket 0.05 0.12
Stream 0.08 0.20
Riparian Fringe 0.07 0.17
Maintained Roadside 0.19 0.46
Paved Roadway 0.13 0.32
Gravel Access Area 0.02 0.06
TOTAL 1.11 2.74
18
Area estimates of community and land types in each alternate
[hectares(acres)].
Alt.I Alt.2 Alt.3
Upland Forest 0.02 (0.06) 0.07 (0.18) 0.16 (0.39)
Alluvial Forest 0.13 (0.32) 0.27 (0.67) 0.16 (0.40)
Upland Thicket 0.04 (0.10) 0.04 (0.10) 0.03 (0.07)
Stream 0.04 (0.09) 0.05 (0.13) 0.04 (0.09)
Riparian Fringe 0.04 (0.10) 0.05 (0.13) 0.04 (0.11)
Maintained Roadside 0.08 (0.19) 0.12 (0.30) 0.09 (0.22)
Paved Roadway 0.03 (0.08) 0.06 (0.16) 0.13 (0.32)
Gravel Access Area 0.02 (0.05) 0.02 (0.05) 0.02 (0.06)
TOTAL 0.40 (0.99) 0.68(l.72) 0.67(l.66)
Construction damage can be incurred on forest land outside the R/W and
construction limits. Such damage can include soil compaction and root exposure and
injury, placing of fill dirt over tree root systems, spillage of damaging substances, and
skinning of trees by machinery. With the exercise of proper care, such damage can be
avoided.
There should be no adverse effects due to fragmentation of habitats. It appears
that all construction will occur adjacent to and within the existing roadway boundary.
Aquatic Systems
Impacts on fishes should be minimal if construction is done carefully to reduce
sedimentation and channel alteration and if no barriers to fish movement are introduced.
Any culverts that may be installed to channel streams can cause behavioral inhibition of
movement for some species.
The general effects of removal of streamside vegetation are (1) increase of stream
temperature and irradiance, thus lowering available dissolved oxygen and increasing the
oxygen demand, (2) reduction of allochthonous food sources, altering the food chain
dynamics of the stream, (3) increase in the amount of sediment reaching the stream in the
surface runoff by reducing the filtering function, and (4) changing the habitat structure in
the stream by reducing the amount of insert debris and number of debris dams. These
effects negatively alter the stream characteristics for many aquatic organisms. Increase in
sediment is probably the most important effect in this project.
Sediment deposition and stream substrate alteration have negative effects on
sessile benthic organisms and on breeding sites. Sediment adversely affects organismal
physiology, behavior, and reproduction. Sediment deposition adversely affects
periphyton communities and thus affects stream productivity and oxygen levels in the
substrate upon which grazing benthic invertebrates depend.
19
Sediment runoff is the greatest potential threat to off-site aquatic systems.
Increased sediment and pollution from highway construction activity and runoff pollution,
after construction are widely recognized as factors that can seriously reduce water quality.
Aquatic organisms are generally acutely sensitive to these inputs. If construction is done
carefully to reduce sediment runoff, there should be no impact to off-site aquatic systems.
SPECIAL TOPICS
Jurisdictional Waters of the United States
Highway construction affects wetlands and surface waters by direct taking and by
alteration of characteristics and functions in adjacent areas. Freshwater wetlands are
important because of their habitat value for fish, wildlife and endangered species;
maintenance of biological diversity; food chain support; nutrient retention and removal;
sediment trapping; shoreline anchoring; regulation of flooding and groundwater
hydrology; recreation; their uniqueness in their own right; and their aesthetic value in
some cases. Highway construction in wetlands has major impacts on their value for these
functions.
Wetlands and surface waters receive specific protection under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251-1376) and other federal and state statutes and
regulations. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has jurisdiction over the
discharge of dredged or fill materials into these waters and wetlands. Determination of
jurisdictional wetlands were made pursuant to 33 CFR 328.3 (b) based on best judgement
of required criteria (Environmental Laboratory 1987).
Surface waters and wetlands of the riverine system of Mountain Creek and
palustrine wetlands of the Pee Dee River floodplain are the jurisdictional waters present
in the study corridor, to which construction will be limited. Though alluvial forests are
extensive in the project area, most of those in the study corridor do not meet the criteria
for jurisdictional wetlands. Alluvial forests are present nearly to the south edge of the
road; wetland hydrology and vegetation exists, but the higher floodplain soils here are not
hydric. Only 0.03 hectares (0.07 acre) of alluvial wetlands not directly associated with
Mountain Creek were included in the study corridor. The remainder, and the largest part,
were in the riparian system of the creek. Substantial jurisdictional wetlands and surface
waters are present downstream of the bridge site and potentially will receive inputs from
road construction.
The amount of wetlands (jurisdictional waters) potentially impacted by
construction is very small. From 0.04-0.07 hectares (0.10-0.18 acre) could be affected,
depending on the alternate selected.
In the NWI system, various classifications are possible for the waters and
wetlands in the project vicinity. Mountain Creek is R2U133H (Riverine, Lower Perennial,
Unconsolidated Bottom, Mud, Permanently Flooded). The associated flats could be
20
classified R2US3A (Riverine, Lower Perennial, Unconsolidated Shore, Mud,
Temporarily Flooded). The alluvial hardwood forests that are wetland are PFO1 A
(Palustrine, Forested, Broad-leaved Deciduous, Temporarily Flooded). The large marshy
areas and sloughs adjacent to the project area are PEM 1 F (Palustrine, Emergent,
Persistent, Semipermanently Flooded) and PSS 1 G (Palustrine, Scrub-Shrub, Persistent,
Intermittently Exposed).
It is difficult to judge the extent of impacts to jurisdictional waters, except for
actual takings under R/W, until the particular design requirements are known. However,
it appears that it will be impossible to completely avoid impacts in project design and
construction.
Permits
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344), a permit is required from the COE to discharge and place fill materials into any
jurisdictional wetlands or surface waters affected by construction. A Section 404
Nationwide Permit No. 23 [33 CFR 330.5 (a)(23)] should authorize this project. This
permit authorizes approved Categorical Exclusions, i.e., activities "categorically excluded
from environmental documentation" because they fall in "a category of actions which
neither individually nor cumulatively have a substantial effect on the human
environment." Individual or General Permits are required for situations where the criteria
for Nationwide Permits are not met. This project is designated as a Categorical Exclusion
(CE) and will likely be covered by Nationwide Permit #23.
A 401 General Water Quality Certification from the Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) in NCDEHNR will be required for construction activity in surface waters and
wetlands where a federal permit is required. This certification is required prior to
issuance of the 404 permit.
Mitigation
The project will cause unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional surface waters and
wetlands. There appear to be no other feasible alternatives for crossing Mountain Creek
at this point. Impacts can be minimized, as noted elsewhere in this report. Until recently,
compensatory mitigation has generally not been required where Nationwide Permits or
General Permits are authorized, pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding between
the Environmental Protection Agency and the COE. However, a 1997 revision of permit
conditions for Nationwide Permit No. 23 by the COE specifies that mitigation for impacts
to surface waters and wetlands may be required. Depending on impact acreage [over
0.4 hectares (1.0 acre)], jurisdictional wetlands of the U.S. may also need to be delineated
prior to permit application submission. The jurisdictional waters involved in this project
are below this acreage value. Final determination regarding mitigation to waters of the
U.S. lies with the COE and the Division of Water Quality. If an Individual Permit should
be required for the stream crossing, all sites (impact areas of surface waters and wetlands)
21
may have to be accumulated for mitigation purposes. Final discretionary authority in
these matters rests with the COE.
Nonetheless, utmost care must be taken in designing and placing all structures and
roadway in order to minimize impact. Properly installed and appropriate kinds of
drainage culverts and catch basins will help minimize impacts. Appropriate erosion
control devices will have to be installed to prevent avoidable storm water discharges into
streams and wetlands, and soil stabilization measures must be taken as quickly as
possible during and after construction of banks, fills, graded areas, culverts, bridges, and
other areas where the soil will be disturbed. Sediment and erosion control measures
should not be placed in wetlands. Likewise, borrow locations should not be placed in
wetlands. When the old bridge is removed, similar measures must be followed to protect
the waters from pollution discharges.
Federally Protected Species
Species classified as Threatened (T), Endangered (E), Proposed Threatened (PT),
and Proposed Endangered (PE) receive federal protection under Section 7 and Section 9
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of May 14, 1998, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service reports four species with one of these classifications for Richmond
County.
Federally protected species in Richmond County, with state category also given.
COMMON NAME
Shortnose sturgeon
Red-cockaded woodpecker
Rough-leaved
loosestrife
Michaux's sumac
SCIENTIFIC NAME FED. CAT.
Acipenser brevirostrum E
Picoides borealis E
Lysimachia asperulaefolia E
Rhus michauxii E
E = Endangered, in danger of extinction throughout all or a substantial
portion of its range (or in the state); SC = Special Concern, requires
monitoring.
The shortnose sturgeon is a marine and estuarine fish of the tidewater and coastal
plain, living in the brackish waters of large rivers and estuaries. It spawns in freshwater
areas, including the Pee Dee River system in Richmond County. Sturgeons require fast
flowing streams with rough bottoms for spawning. Suitable habitat for this species does
not exist in the project area.
Biological Conclusion: No effect.
The red-cockaded woodpecker inhabits mature, open pine forests, primarily
longleaf pine forests in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont for breeding. The species favors
22
large tracts of old pines, suitable for the construction of nesting cavities, in areas having
sparse understory vegetation. The woodpecker has been largely extirpated in most areas
outside the southeastern Coastal Plain of North Carolina due to the demise of mature pine
forests following logging and the elimination of fire. Old loblolly pine stands may also
be used. Though present in Richmond County, the red-cockaded woodpecker is not
recorded in the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database for any sites
near the project area. Habitat for this species in the project vicinity appears to be
submarginal, at best; individuals or cavity trees were not observed.
Biological Conclusion: No effect.
Rough-leaved loosestrife is a small slender herb with whorled leaves in the
Primulaceae. It flowers in May-June and fruits in August-October. It is endemic to the
Carolinas, but mostly in the southeastern Coastal Plain in North Carolina. Pocosins and
pocosin/savanna ecotones are the exclusive habitats. This type of habitat does not occur
in the project area. No plants were observed.
Biological Conclusion: No effect.
Michaux's sumac is a small, dioecious, rhizomatous shrub up to 0.6 meters
(2 feet) tall in the Anacardiaceae. It is easily distinguished from winged sumac by being
densely pubescent throughout and having serrate leaflets. The plant flowers from June to
August and fruits in August to October. It has a limited distribution in the inner Coastal
Plain and lower Piedmont. The habitat is sandhills, sandy or rocky open woodlands, and
woodland edges. Populations have been documented in Richmond County within the last
10 years. There may be an affinity for basic soils. Habitat for this species is marginal in
the project area. No plants were observed.
Biological Conclusion: No effect.
Construction of this project will not affect any federally protected animal or plant
species.
23
u•or
n
LLD ROB I `^
• ?J ?? 1 ., o '--? 131) • 1
E"_'7 y ID 1 1111
111. 1
a
llt 4 _!' 1 i _ i- Nq -
rlilb \?? `e „ 1111 I ? 5
.e LM C.aak 1311 121 )
h
J 4 73 ?4 - 0 Y
11 ? / 11 Co.inplen ` r s _ F o? ? ?_w ° ? / 131v. ,,f
~ O ) 117 ?• .9 ' 11L
IY > Concord
Im 73
,? L ? ?? 1)17 c
14 T _ 11
\? ' V 11L \ 111.Q 819 - shown s' e._ 's loJ ti
J =.r 01. n
110 ?9
n
\I'- v z 2i3 Mon
^?1 lt ^ e e
(F j1!r ?s 7 1e
Lug
C ? I e !33
1? ?---•
LQR "Los,
? R
} 17S
\ N i 7 7{` ?l G
IIIr r II.• . I
EL11EAeE,
,,? ? l.nmm •?' 30, roc I
ono v r o s
w . ua 3
U A-
? \ - `r' Band o l
1.1 1 140 y'0
100!
/ /? - LW 7
• "' \ - _ _ _ _ -. gas a.
Namon ? ?' \ ?a G)1"7 i? Y Greer?l L.k.
oeh' -3 1 A }}Qe 11? L! ',
J r 1 Soar e /
? EII • Cs'yr• _1744 1343 ??--, Isi.
~R y?C H MOND E ??J J
? /'? ( ?? - 124! LS17
Jt?-- LM
f Robadel a^`.?MB?nton 7.1 n. 1 M1?
1 / ?? n-? )o .91 I UU 1424
}; ; ?oC?kin am ?? ' LIU 1. ?- fir"'M1 v .e
11 - - _ Isom 1 LAU
• * HatRlel= Studied Detour Route -?_
4
An
Hoorn Cn.7
S ,I )? 11E
rte.,
Ion `S*c?1. 5
°d North Carolina
Department Of Transportation
Planning& Environmental Branch
RICHMOND COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 90 ON SR 1148
OVER MOUNTAIN CREEK
B-3026
Figure 1
s

v5._
S} IH9 .fit, P , a

i,

o M z

n
H
y H
Y p O ?

a
z
w
y z
y

H r y
H
w
r
a
n
a
r
H
z?
d
N
t
y r y 1rln?1` ? "b ?'3 z
w
?+ O
C A At ?
N ?

f''t ? ?iA
211tw4w" il A-A4
I
EAST APPROACH LOOKING WEST
WEST APPROACH LOOKING EAST (entrance to VWRC area on left)
FIGURE 3
SOUTH FACE OF BRIDGE

BOAT RAMP AND WRC AREA
FIGURE 4
NCWRC,HCPvFALLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Jul 15'98 14:13 No.001 P.02
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission El
512 N. Salisburv Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733.3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jeff lnbham
Proiect Planning Engineer, NCDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project C r t for
llabitat Conservation Progrwn_
DATE: July 15, 1998
SUBJECT: Bridge No. 90 replacement on SR 1148 over Mountain Creek in Richmond
County, North Carolina. TIP No. B-3026.
We have reviewed the information provided by NC001' and feel that the subject project
will not adversely ailect the NCWRC owned Grassy Island Boating Access Area on Blcwett
Falls T.ake provided the 1'oliowing measures are incorporated into the project Mans.
The boating access area must remain open and usable during and after the construction of
the new bridge. 'T'his may necessitate the construction of a new or temporary access
road. Fur any construction (new or modification), the NCWRC Division of Engineering
Services should be contacted for a review of the plans prior to construction. Please
contact Mr. Gordon Myers, Chief, Division of Engineering Services, Nt 715-3155 ex.
276.
2. The boating; access area will not be available for the contractor to use its u staging area.
3. Any construction equipment or structures that could pose a navigational hazard must be
clearly niarkcd Lind huve appropriate ligl?ting at night so as not to be a safety hazard to
boaters.
If you have any f iuther questions please call me at [phone].
J UL) sr?
4 7
11' f
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
March 20, 1997
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge 90 on SR 1 148 over Mountain Creek,
Richmond County, B-3026, Federal Aid Project
BRZ-1 148(2), State Project 8.2580701, ER 97-
8341
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
On March 18, 1997, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning the above
project. We reported our available information on historic architectural and
archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations. NCDOT
provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There are no known 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.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2507 ???
,r'
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: ` F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITH MINOR INVOLVEMENT
WITH PUBLIC PARKS, RECREATION LANDS, AND WILDLIFE AND
WATERFOWL REFUGES
F. A. Project BRZ-1148(2)
State Project 8.2580701
T. I. P. No. B-3026
Description: Replacement of Bridge No. 90 over Mountain Creek on SR 1148 in
Richmond County
Resource: Grassy Island Boating Access Area
es No
1. Is the proposed project designed to
improve the operational characteristics,
safety, and/or physical condition of ?
existing highway facilities on X
essentially the same location?
2. Is the project on new location? ? X
3. Is the Section 4(f) land a publicly
owned public park, recreation land, or ?
wildlife and waterfowl refuge located X
adjacent to the existing highway?
4. Does the amount and location of the land
to be used impair the use of the
remaining Section 4(f) land, in whole or
X
in part, for its intended purpose?
F
(See chart below)
Total size of section 4(f) site Maximum to be acquired
less than 10 acres ............ 10 percent of site
10 acres-100 acres ............ 1 acre
greater than 100 acres ............ 1 percent of site
Yes No
Do the proximity impacts of the project
(e.g., noise, air and water pollution,
wildlife and habitat effects, aesthetic
values) on the remaining Section 4(f)
land impair the use of such land for its X
intended purpose?
6. Do the officials having jurisdiction
over the Section 4(f) land agree, in
writing, with the assessment of the
impacts of the proposed project on, and ?
the proposed mitigation for, the Section X
4(f) lands?
7. Does the project use land from a site
purchased or improved with funds under
the Land and Water Conservation Act
(Section 6(f)), the Federal Aid in Fish
Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson Act),
the Federal Aid in Wildlife Act
(Pittman-Robertson Act), or similar
laws, or are the lands otherwise
encumbered with a Federal interest ? X
(e.g., former Federal surplus property)?
8. If the project involves lands described
in Item 7 above, does the appropriate
Federal Agency object to the land ? X
conversion or transfer?
9. Does the project require preparation of
an EIS? ? X
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE
FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT
Yes No
The following alternatives were evaluated and ?
found not to be feasible and prudent: X
1. Do-nothing.
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
(a) correct capacity deficiencies? ? X
or (b) correct existing safety hazards? ? X
or (c) correct deteriorated conditions? ? X
and (d) create costs, unusual problems, or X ?
impacts of extraordinary measure?
2. Improvement of the highway without using
the adjacent public park, recreational
land, or wildlife waterfowl refuge
(a) Have minor alignment shifts,
changes in standards, use of
retaining walls, etc., or traffic
management measures been evaluated?
(b) The items in 2(a) would result in
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) substantial adverse community impact
or (ii) substantial increased costs
or ((iii unique engineering, transportation,
maintenance, or safety problems
or (iv) substantial social, environmental,
or economic impacts
or (v) a project which does not meet the need
X F-I
x?
and (vi) impacts, costs, or problems which are
extraordinary magnitude
Yes No
3. Build an improved facility on new
location without using the public park.
recreational land, or wildlife and
waterfowl refuge. (This would be a X
localized "run around.")
(a) An alternate on new location would
result in: (circle, as appropriate)
(i) a project which does not solve
-the existing problems
or (ii) substantial social,
environmental, or economic
impacts
or (iii a substantial increase in
project cost or engineering
difficulties
and (iv) such impacts, costs, or
difficulties of truly unusual
or unique or extraordinary
magnitude
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
Yes No
1. The project includes all possible D
planning to minimize harm. X
2. Measures to minimize harm include the
following:
(circle those which are appropriate)
a. Replacement of lands used with lands
of reasonably equivalent usefulness
and location and of at least
comparable value.
b. Replacement of facilities impacted
by the project including sidewalks.
paths, benches, lights, trees, and
other facilities.
c. Restoration and landscaping of
disturbed areas.
d. Incorporation of design features and
habitat features, where necessary,
to reduce or minimize impacts to the
Section 4(f) property.
e. Payment of the fair market value of
the land and improvements taken or
improvements to the remaining
Section 4(f) site equal to the fair
market value of the land and
improvements taken.
O Additional or alternative mitigation
measures as determined necessary
based on consultation with the
officials having jurisdiction over
the parkland, recreation area, or
wildlife or waterfowl refuge.
3. A discussion of specific mitigation measures is provided as follows:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will adhere to the following
commitments:
1. The boating access area must remain open and usable during the construction of
the new bridge. This may necessitate the construction of a new or temporary
access road. For any construction (new or modification), Mr. Gordon Myers,
Chief of NC"C Division of Engineering Services, should be contacted (919-
715-3155 ext. 276) for a review of the plans prior to construction.
2. The boating access area will not be available for the contractor to use as a staging
area.
3. Any construction equipment or structures that could pose a navigational hazard
must be clearly marked and have appropriate lighting at night so as not to be a
safety hazard to boaters.
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information prior to approval. Consult
Nationwide 4(f) evaluation.
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach correspondence):
a. Officials having jurisdiction over X
the Section 4(f) Land
b. Local/State/Federal Agencies
c. US Coast Guard
(for bridges requiring bridge permits)
d. DOI, if Section 6(f) lands are
involved
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic 4(f) evaluation approved on
December 23, 1986.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are clearly applicable
to this project. There are no feasible or prudent alternatives which avoid use of the Section
4(f) land.
The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm, and there are assurances that
the measures to minimize harm will be incorporated in the project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed
Approved:
7 -?-2- 1 ?2)?
Date Rsr?, Manager, Planning & Environmental Branch
NCDOT
7,7
D ??. ivi ' ?FHW?A??
Richmond County
?:. Bridge No. 90 on SR l l48
<?r Over Mountain Creek
ect BRZ-1148
Federal ProJ (2)
State Project 8.2580701
' TIP # B-3026 0 1 1 8 1
ADDENDUM TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
-Z'1-99 ??' (/ ALI- IL
Datef-,William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Date,(d Nicholas Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Richmond County
Bridge No. 90 on SR 1148
Over Mountain Creek
Federal Project BRZ-1148(2)
State Project 8.2580701
TIP # B-3026
ADDENDUM TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
September 1999
Documentation Prepared in
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
4V J20-?
Jeff Yh' P.E.
Proj t De elopment gineer
91'1Yt1Q- Z-71,,-v;11
Wayne Elliott
Bridge Project Development Engineer, Unit Head
?v' ? (/ i9'?%a-11-
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
uu,II
CAR
? ••' FESS/p'•,'9
%
i SEAL
! 24496
• i
08141 Mess
Richmond County
Bridge No. 90 on SR 1148
Over Mountain Creek
Federal Project BRZ-1148(2)
State Project 8.2580701
TIP # B-3026
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Division 8
"Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" will be adhered to throughout design
and construction. Borrow/waste areas will not be located in wetlands.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will adhere to the following
commitments so as not to adversely affect the North Carolina Wildlife Resource
Commission (NCWRC) owned Grassy Island Boating Access Area on Blewett Falls
Lake:
1. The boating access area must remain open and usable during the construction of
the new bridge. This may necessitate the construction of a new or temporary
access road. For any construction (new or modification), Mr. Gordon Myers,
Chief of NCWRC Division of Engineering Services, should be contacted (919-
715-3155 ext. 276) for a review of the plans prior to construction.
2. The boating access area will not be available for the contractor to use as a staging
area.
3. Any construction equipment or structures that could pose a navigational hazard
must be clearly marked and have appropriate lighting at night so as not to be a
safety hazard to boaters.
Addendum to Categorical Exclusion
September 1999
Richmond County
Bridge No. 90 on SR 1148
Over Mountain Creek
Federal Project BRZ-1148(2)
State Project 8.2580701
TIP # B-3026
I. BACKGROUND
A Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the subject project was approved on July 29,
1998. The document recommended Alternate 3, replacement with a bridge
approximately 64 meters (210 feet) in length and 9.1 meters (30 feet) in width on new
alignment north of the existing bridge. Traffic was to be maintained on the existing
bridge during construction.
Two other alternatives were evaluated in the CE. Alternate 1 proposed to replace
Bridge No. 90 on the existing alignment with a bridge approximately 64 meters (210 feet)
in length. Traffic would be detoured along surrounding roads during construction.
Alternate 2 also proposed to replace Bridge No. 90 on the existing alignment with a bridge
approximately 64 meters (210 feet) in length. Traffic would be maintained during
construction using a temporary detour alignment to the south of the existing bridge. The
temporary alignment for Alternate 2 would include a temporary bridge approximately
42.7 meters (140 feet) in length.
At the time that the CE was completed, the NCDOT recommended Alternate 3
because it was estimated to be the most economical alternate that would avoid road
closure.
II. DISCUSSION
After further design and evaluation, the NCDOT Geotechnical Unit discovered
that the chosen alignment would require a significant amount of rock excavation that
would substantially increase project costs. Based on the most recent estimates,
Alternate 3 would cost approximately $ 2,350,000. Alternate 2, which would replace the
bridge on existing location while maintaining traffic with an on-site detour, would cost
approximately $ 1,600,000. Closing the road during construction and replacing the
bridge at the existing location, Alternate 1, would cost approximately $ 1,300,000 (not
including road user costs).
Road user analysis indicates that vehicles routinely using SR 1148 would
experience a travel cost increase of approximately $ 195,000 during project construction.
This cost is based on 300 vehicles per day traveling an average additional distance of
approximately 12.8 kilometers (8 miles) for a nine-month construction period. The
division engineer and the N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission recommended that traffic
be maintained throughout construction. It is important that the boat ramp and lake access
2
just north of the bridge remain open and easily accessible at all times, as it is one of very
few access points to Blewett Falls Lake.
All of the alternates will affect minor amounts of wetlands. Alternate l would
impact approximately 0.04 hectares [0.10 acres]; Alternate 2 would impact approximately
0.07 hectares [0.18 acres]; Alternate 3 would impact approximately 0.04 hectares
[0.10 acres]. Alternate 3, involving probable construction on steep and rocky slopes,
appears to have the greatest potential for sediment discharges. With the exception of
certain wetlands, most of the study corridors consist of land types and communities
whose loss or modification will not be highly substantial in the long-term. There are no
substantial species or natural communities present in the project area. Except for wetland
impacts and problems with sediment discharge, there appear to be no other potentially
substantial impacts to biotic diversity or natural communities that would occur as a result
of construction of this project.
III. RECOMMENDATIONS
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 90 at the existing location as described in
Alternate 2. Traffic will be maintained during construction using an on-site temporary
detour south of the existing bridge.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
Alternate 2 is the preferred alternative for replacing Bridge No. 90 on SR 1148
over the Mountain Creek in Richmond County. Alternate 2 is the most economical
alternate that avoids road closure.
N

Q
o
0.1?.
??++?i1/ VJNLe
o Ellen./
~R /IC;iH M O N D
9 Raberdel Mutton
1 L III ?i ?'
„- x `Rockingham
Ls , *.[ 1/
/.Dove ? H? amltl ?.
f ?
a i,l ?-
Ion ''; GM S
a.
1 iQ
A
r

UZI
LIU
ro .f S ? ?l: ? ? ? .r.
Studied Detour Route -Q