20010225 Ver 1_Complete File_20010213

V? R 0 W R CD(0225
_.-? . eg o ?AA
AUG 2 4 ig99
WETLANDS GROUP
WATER QUALITY SECTlOgs`
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
August 23, 1999
MEMO TO: John Hennessy
Division of Water Quality
FROM: Karen Orthner
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
RE: B-3356, Bridge Demolition
Attached is a draft copy of the Programmatic Categorical Exclusion for
B-3356. The draft "green sheet" containing project commitments is located at the back of
the document. Any additional commitments we agree upon will be included on this
sheet.
If you have any questions regarding this project, please do not hesitate to contact
me at 733-7844 Ext. 236. Thank you very much for your comments. I look forward to
hearing from you in about a month.
Sincerely,
Karen Orthner
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
M Uor?
DRAFT COPY
C) i C%aa5
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-3356
State Project No. 8.2561101
Federal Project No. MABRZ-1861(4)
A. Project Description:
The project involves replacing Bridge No. 149 and Bridge No. 150
over the Little River Overflow and the Little River on SR 1861 in Moore
County. Each bridge will be replaced with a 50-foot long bridge in
approximately the same location and roadway elevation as the existing
bridge. The cross sections of the bridges will consist of two 10-foot lanes
with 2-foot offsets. Guardrail will be installed where warranted.
Approach work will consist of resurfacing and tying in to the existing
roadway. The total project length will be approximately 560 feet. Traffic
will be detoured along surrounding roads during construction.
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 149 was built in 1950 and Bridge No. 150 was built in
1955. Bridge No. 149 has a sufficiency rating of 18.6 and Bridge No. 150
has a sufficiency rating of 20.7, both out of a possible 100. The decks and
substructures of these bridges are in poor condition. Therefore, the
bridges need to be replaced.
C. Proposed Improvements:
The following Type II improvements which apply to the project are circled:
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration,
rehabilitation, reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary
lanes (e.g., parking, weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing
pavement (3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through
lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn
lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage
pipes, including safety treatments
gg Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through
lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects
including the installation of ramp metering control devices and
lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and
pier protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median
barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/or
realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including
removing hazards and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail
retrofit
3O Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the
construction of grade separation to replace existing at-grade
railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach
slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint),
scour repair, fender systems, and minor structural
improvements
Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited
use of right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have
significant adverse impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas
used predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where
such construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and
located on or near a street with adequate capacity to handle
anticipated bus and support vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings
and ancillary, facilities where only minor amounts of additional land
are requirend there is not a substantial increase in the number of
users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of
passenger shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street
2
improvements) when located in a commercial area or other high
activity center in which there is adequate street capacity for
projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where
there is no significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance
land acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship
and protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel
or a limited number of parcels. These types of land acquisition
qualify for a CE only where the acquisition will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in alignment for planned
construction projects, which may be required in the NEPA process.
No project development on such land may proceed until the NEPA
process has been completed.
D. Special Project Information:
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction $ 550,000
Right of Way
Total Cost $ 28/000
578,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 200 vpd
Year 2025 -
Dual - 500 vpd
2%
TTST - 1%
Proposed Cross Section:
The approach roadway cross section will include two 10-foot lanes
with 4-foot shoulders.
Design Speed:
50 mph
Functional Classification:
Rural Local Route
Division Office Comments:
The Division Eight Office concurs with the recommendation of
detouring traffic along surrounding roads during construction.
Bridge Demolition:
Bridge No. 149 has two spans totaling 35 feet in length. The bridge
deck is composed of concrete. The substructure contains one interior bent
composed of timber with a steel cap and two abutments composed of
mass concrete. The bridge railings, the interior bent, and the abutment
located on the riverbank will be removed without dropping components
into Waters of the United States. There is potential for the components of
the deck and one abutment located in the river to be dropped into Waters
of the United States during construction. The resulting temporary fill
associated with the concrete deck and abutment is approximately 17 yd3.
Bridge No. 150 has two spans totaling 41 feet in length. The bridge
deck is composed of concrete. The substructure is composed of mass
concrete. However, only the interior bent is located in the river. The
bridge railings and the two abutments will be removed without dropping
any components into Waters of the United States. There is potential for
components of the deck and the interior bent to be dropped into Waters of
the United States. The resulting temporary fill associated with the
concrete deck and interior bent is approximately 9 yd3.
4
E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type
II actions
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any unique
or important natural resource? X
(2) Does the project involve habitat where federally listed
endangered or threatened species may occur? X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-third (1/3) of an acre and have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland takings been ?
evaluated? X
(5) Will the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service
lands? X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters
(HQW)?

X
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties?
X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? ?
X

PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
"Area of gnvironmental Concern" (AEC)? X
(11) Does the roject involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources. X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required? ?
X
s
(13) Will the proJJ'ect result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway? X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel ?
changes? X
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? X
(16) Will the ?roject require the relocation of any family or
business
X
.
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental effect on any
minority or low-income population? X
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is ?
the amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control? ?
X
(20) Will the proJject substantially alter the usefulness
and/or land use of adjacent
ro
ert
?
X
p
p
y
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent
l
l
oca
trafic patterns or community cohesiveness? X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of
1990)? ?
X

(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using

existing roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? ?
X
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the
bridge be replaced at its existing location (along the
existing facility) and will all construction proposed in
association with the bridge replacement project be
h ?
contained on t
e existing facility? X
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local ?
laws relating to the environmental aspects of the project? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/ properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic
Places? X
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains which
are important to history or pre-history? X
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl
refuges, historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act
of 1966)? X
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as
defined by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water
Conservation Act of 1965, as amended? X
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or
adjacent to a river designated as a component of or
proposed for inclusion in the Natural System of Wild and ?
Scenic Rivers? X
F. Additional Documentation Reauired for Unfavorable
kuiscusswn regaruing aii unravoranie res ones in tart t; snoula be
provided below. Additional supporting ocumentation may be attached,
as necessary.)
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
Federal-Aid Project No.
Project Description:
B-3356
8.2561101
MABRZ-1861(4)
The project involves replacing Bridge No. 149 and Bridge No. 150
over the Little River Overflow and the Little River on SR 1861 in Moore
County. Each bridge will be replaced with a 50-foot long bridge in
approximately the same location and roadway elevation as the existing
bridge. The cross sections of the bridges will consist of two 10-foot lanes
with 2-foot offsets. Guardrail will be installed where warranted.
Approach work will consist of resurfacing and tying in to the existing
roadway. The total project length will be approximately 560 feet. Traffic
will be detoured along surrounding roads during construction.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
X TYPE II(A)
TYPE II(B)
Approved:
Date Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Date Wayne Elliott, Project Development Unit Head
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Date Karen T. Orthner, Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
0
1903 Lakeview Ch.
P
118843 • o . ?2 id' 1.
'c • `? 1862 0
1853
1843
1
1

1
1 C?•
1 1861
1
1 Sr,
1
1
1 Stare .?? 1864
1 ?
l
'
ea
/6
v

.65
vT `

1861

1904 r

3? 186a ' ??

05 .
S? `

Okwprw
11
r ?a
- S Westmoore 7 _ _ ? -' ' \
High a IS _ _Glend`
J.?,R Rab?ttL _
jrivl 9 O 0 R 1, E
Carthage
OS 2
narcand Hill Crest
Whr
agl s 22 P
Springs 11 Seven Lakes
Eastwood %
West 13
a
End
4
C
2
Jackson
oq rr
;r s Pinehurst
au

? Aberde
b en i
PineluM,
^14

ri
r?
r
3pennrs 1 1
mes /
ass ?
Cakeew `
Manly

i
/ 2175
North Carolina
_ Department Of Transportation
1=
'''*... mss' Planning & Environmental Branch
MOORE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO'S. 149 AND 150
ON SR 1861 OVER LITTLE RIVER
B-3356
0 kilometers 0.4 kilometers 0.8
Figure I
0 miles 0.25 miles 0.5
0 0 0 6 - Studied Detour Route
N
URA F-r Copy
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Replacement of Bridge No. 149 and Bridge No. 150 on SR 1861
Over Little River Overflow and Little River
Moore County
Federal-Aid No. MABRZ-1861(4), State Project No. 8.2561101
T.I.P. No. B-3356
Commitments Developed Through Project Development and Design
1. PDEA Branch (Natural Resources), Roadway Design, Structure Design,
Division Six Construction Office
NCDOT will adhere to the Best Management Practices for "Bridge
Demolition" during the demolition of Bridge No. 149 and Bridge No. 150.
2. Roadway Design, Division Six Construction Office
Due to the classification of the Little River as High Quality Water,
NCDOT will ;adhere to Best Management Practices for "Protection of Surface
Waters and Sedimentation Control Guidelines in Sensitive Watersheds" during
the construction stage of the project.
Programmatic Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1
August 23,1999

e??6
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY 1501 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NC 27699-1501
GovERNOR
010225
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
February 2, 2001
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Mr. David Timpy
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
Subject: Replacement of obsolete Bridge No.'s 149 and 150 on SR 1861 over Little
River, Moore County. Federal Aid Project No. MABRZ-1861(4), State
Project No. 8.2561101, TIP No. B-3356. Nationwide Permit 23 Application.
Please find enclosed three copies of the Project Planning Report and Natural
Resources Technical Report for the above referenced project. Bridge No.'s 149 and 150
will be replaced on approximately the same location and elevation alignment as the
existing bridge. Each new bridge will be 24 feet wide and 50 feet long. Traffic will be
detoured on surrounding roads during construction.
Although there is an extensive wetland system bordering the Little River, the
proposed bridge construction does not extend far enough outside the existing fill slope to
encroach on the wetlands. However, a proposed 50 m3 drainage basin located at the
eastern end of the project will impact two small wetland areas, totaling approximately
0.025 acre. There will be no impact to the river itself, as each new bridge will be a single
span. Because this section of the Little River is listed as a High Quality Water, BMPs for
"Protection of Surface Waters and Sedimentation Control Guidelines in Sensitive
Watersheds" as well as BMPs for "Bridge Demolition and Removal" will be followed.
This 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 Nationwide

Permit. 23 in accordance with the Federal Register of December 13, 1996, Part VII,
Volume 61, Number 241.
We anticipate a 401 General Certification 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 additional information, please call Ms. Sue Brady at
[phone].
Sincerely,

William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/attachment
Mr. David Franklin, COE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Timothy V. Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachment
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Mr. J. Victor Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. D. R. Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Bill Rosser, P.E., Division 8 Engineer
Ms. Karen Orthner, Project Development and Environmental Analysis

010225
r CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-3356
State Project No. 8.2561101
Federal Project No. MABRZ-1861(4)
A. Project Description:
The project involves replacing Bridge No. 149 and Bridge No. 150
over the Little River Overflow and the Little River on SR 1861 in Moore
County. Each bridge will be replaced with a 50-f00t long bridge in
approximately the same location and roadway elevation as the existing
bridge. The cross sections of the brides will consist of two 10-foot lanes
with 2-foot offsets. Guardrail will be installed where warranted.
Approach work will consist of resurfacing and tying in to the existing
roadway. The total project length will be approximately 560 feet. Traffic
will be detoured along surrounding roads during construction.
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 149 was built in 1950 and Bridge No. 150 was built in
1955. Bridge No. 149 has a sufficiency rating of 18.6 and Bridge No. 150
has a sufficiency rating of 20.7, both out of a possible 100. The decks and
substructures of these bridges are in poor condition. Therefore, the
bridges need to be replaced.
C. Proposed Improvements:
The following Type II improvements which apply to the project are circled:
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration,
rehabilitation, reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary
lanes (e.g., parking, weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing
pavement (3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through
lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn
lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage
pipes, including safety treatments
g Providing driveway pipes
g. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through
lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects
including the installation of ramp metering control devices and
lighting.

a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and
pier protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median
barriers
g. Impproving intersections including relocation and/or
reali? ent
h. Making or roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including
removing hazards and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail
retrofit
O3 Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the
construction of grade separation to replace existing at-grade
railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach
slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint),
scour repair, ender systems, and minor structural
improvements
Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited
use of right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have
significant adverse impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas
used predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where
such construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and
located on or near a street with adequate capacity to handle
anticipated bus and support vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings
and ancillary, facilities where only minor amounts of additional land
are requirend there is not a substantial increase in the number of
users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of
passenger shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street
2

improvements) when located in a commercial area or other high
activity center in which there is adequate street capacity for
projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where
there is no significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance
land acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship
and protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel
or a limited number of parcels. These types of land acquisition
qualify for a CE only where the acquisition will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in alignment for planned
construction projects, which may be required in the NEPA process.
No project development on such land may proceed until the NEPA
process has been completed.
D. Special Project Information:
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction $ 550,000
Right of Way $ 28 000
000
578
Total Cost ,
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 200 vpd
Year 2025 - 500 vpd
Dual - 2%
TTST - 1%
Proposed Cross Section:
The approach roadway cross section will include two 10-foot lanes
with 4-foot shoulders.
Design Speed:
50 mph
Functional Classification:
Rural Local Route
r
Division Office Comments:
The Division Eight Office concurs with the recommendation of
detouring traffic along surrounding roads during construction.
Bridge Demolition:
Bridge No. 149 has two spans totaling 35 feet in length. The bridge
deck is composed of concrete. The substructure contains one interior bent
composed of timber with a steel cap and two abutments composed of
mass concrete. The bridge railings, the interior bent, and the abutment
located on the riverbank will be removed without dropping components
into Waters of the United States. There is potential for the components of
the deck and one abutment located in the river to be dropped into Waters
of the United States during construction. The resulting temporary fill
associated with the concrete deck and abutment is approximately 17 yd3.
Bridge No. 150 has two spans totaling 41 feet in length. The bridge
deck is composed of concrete. The entire substructure is composed of
concrete. However, only the interior bent is located in Waters of the
United States. The bridge railings and the two abutments will be
removed without dropping any components into Waters of the United
States. There is potential for components of the deck and the interior bent
to be dropped into Waters of the United States. The resulting temporary
fill associated with the concrete deck and interior bent is approximately
9 yd3.
IN

E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type
II actions
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any unique ?
- or important natural resource? X
(2) Does the project involve habitat where federally listed
endangered or threatened species may occur? X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? ?
X

(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-third (1/3) of an acre and have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland takings been ?
evaluated? X
(5) Will the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service ?
lands? X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? x
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters ?
(HQW) .
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
ted mountain trout counties?
d
i
f th
i
X
gna
es
e
n any o
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites?
X
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
Project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
'Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)? X
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act ?
resources? X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required? ?
X
5
?r
(13) Will the prioodway? ect result in the modification of any existing
regulatory X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel ?
changes? X
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? X
(16) Will the ?roject require the relocation of any family or
business
X
.
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental effect on any
minority or low-income population? X
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is
the amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control? ?
X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness
and/or land use of ad
acent
ro
ert
?
X
j
p
p
y
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent
local traffic
atterns or communit
cohesiveness?
X
p
y
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of
1990)?
X

(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using ?
existing roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(25) If the project is a bride replacement project, will the
bride be replaced at its existing location (along the
existing facility) and will all construction proposed in
association with the bridge replacement project be
d
h
f
l
containe
on t
e existing
ity?
aci X
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? X

6
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local
laws relating to the environmental aspects of the project? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/ properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic
Places? X
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains which
are important to history or pre-history? X
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl
refuges, historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act ?
of 1966)? X
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as
defined by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water
Conservation Act of 1965, as amended? X
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or
adjacent to a river designated as a component of or
proposed for inclusion in the Natural System of Wild and
Scenic Rivers? 7C
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in fart E should be
provided below. Additional supporting documentation may be attached,
as necessary.)
Item 4 - The anticipated impact to wetland areas in the proposed project
is 0.55.acre. However, impacts are calculated using the entire proposed
right-of-way width. Usually, project construction does not require the
entire right-of-way; therefore, actual wetland impacts may be
considerably less.
Item 7 - This section of the Little River is classified as High Quality Water.
This classification deems B-3356 as "Case 1" according to NCDOT s Best
Management Practices (BMPs) for "Bridge Demolition and Removal,"
where in-water work is limited to an absolute minimum. This case
requires coordination with the Division of Water Quality regarding
environmental commitments for the project. Through coordination, the
Division of Water Quality has requested no additional environmental
commitments for B-3356 other than adherence to the BMPs for Bridge
Demolition and Removal."
In addition, this High Quality Water section of the Little River will be
protected by strict adherence to NCDOT's BMPs for "Protection of Surface
p Waters and Sedimentation Control Guidelines in Sensitive Watersheds"
during construction.
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
Federal-Aid Project No.
Project Description:
B-3356
8.2561101
MABRZ-1861(4)
The pro]ject involves replacing Bridge No. 149 and Bridge No. 150
over the Little River Overflow and the Little River on SR 1861 in Moore
County. Each bridge will be replaced with a 50-foot long bridge in
approximately the same location and roadway elevation as the existing
bridge. The cross sections of the brides will consist of two 10-foot lanes
with 2-foot offsets. Guardrail will be installed where warranted.
Approach work will consist of resurfacing and tying in to the existing
roadway. The total project length will be approximately 560 feet. Traffic
will be detoured along surrounding roads during construction.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
TYPE II(A)
X TYPE II(B)
Approved:
li-z4--?q
Date
//-Z3--91
Date
% 31q ?
Da
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., A:
Project Development and
7/ o? -
Analysis Branch
Wayne Elliott, Project Development Unit Head
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
a en T. rthner, Project Development Engineer
Project D velopment and Environmental Analysis Branch
For Type II(B) projects only:
11 (34 11
Date
?o ,-- ?? 0- ? t^v
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration

I

._--. Bridge No.150
- 6 1
;186 Brir1903
1904
!
?? 1805
1
1 VASS
1
1
1
1 J 1861
1
1 i 1864
?? 18 4

1
LAKEVIEW
2175
2025
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning & Environmental Branch
Moore County
Replace Bridge No. 149 and Bridge No. 150
On SR 1861 Over little River
B-3356
SCALE: 1 in = 1 mi Figure 1

?d .we.a
E r ?y
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray A p lt,,$
C gp. f%98
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridges 149 and 150 on SR 1861, Moore
County, B-3356, Federal Aid Project MABRZ-
1861(4), State Project 8.2561101, ER 98-8622
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
8
,,? ; 199
a.
J 4r ?, r
We regret staff was unable to attend the scoping meeting for the above project on
April 7, 1998. However, Debbie Bevin met with Jeff Ingham of the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) on April 15, 1998, to discuss the project
and view the project photographs and aerial.
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 27601-2807 g°?(?
Nicholas L. Graf
4/22/98, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
i2&x-ed
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: VH. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Replacement of Bridge No. 149 and Bridge No. 150 on SR 1861
Over Little River Overflow and Little River
Moore County
Federal-Aid No. MABRZ-1861(4), State Project No. 8.2561101
T.I.P. No. B-3356
Commitments Developed Through Proiect`Development and Desi
1. PDEA Branch (Natural Resources), Roadway Design Unit, Division Six
Construction Office, Roadside Environmental Unit
NCDOT will adhere to the Best Management Practices for "Bridge
Demolition and Removal" during the demolition of Bridge No. 149 and Bridge
No. 150.
2. Roadway Design Unit, Division Six Construction Office, Roadside
Environmental Unit
Due to the classification of the Little River as High Quality Water,
NCDOT will adhere to Best Management Practices for "Protection of Surface
Waters and Sedimentation Control Guidelines in Sensitive Watersheds" during
the construction-stage of the project.
Page 1 of 1
..? STATE o?
"vn
Q QMM •??
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR
24 Mav 199Q
MEMORANDUM TO: Karen Ortnner
Project Pianning Engine:
SECRETARY
FROM: Susan Brady, Natural Systems Specialist
Natural Systems Unit
SUBJECT: Replacement of obsolete Bridge No.'s 149 and 150 on SR 1861
over Little River, Moore County. Federal Aid Project No.
MABRZ-1861(4), State Project No. 8.2561101, TIP No.
B-3356.
This report is submitted to assist in the preparation of a Programmatic Categorical
Exclusion (PCE) for the subject project. Water resources, biotic resources and
jurisdictional issues such as wetlands and federally protected species are included in this
report.
This project is located in the Coastal Plain physiographic province, and involves
the proposed replacement of Bridge No.'s 149 and 150 on SR 1861 over the Little River
in Moore County. The existing right of way (ROW) is approximately 18.3 m (60.0 ft), as
is the proposed ROW. The existing cross section consists of 4.0 m (13.0 ft) wide one-
lane bridges, and the proposed replacements will be 7.3 m (24.0 ft) wide two-lane
bridges. These bridges will each be approximately 15.0 m (50.0 ft) long, and will be on
the existing location and elevation. Project length is approximately 152.4 m (500.0 ft).
Bridge No. 149 has two spans totaling 35 feet in length. The bridge deck is
composed of concrete. The substructure contains one interior bent composed of timber
with a steel cap and two abutments composed of mass concrete. The bridge railings, the
interior bent, and the abutment located on the riverbank will be removed without
dropping components into Waters of the United States. There is potential for the
components of the deck and one abutment located in the river to be dropped into Waters
of the United States during construction. The resulting temporary fill associated with the
concrete deck and abutment is approximately 17 yd3.
Bridge No. 150 has two spans totaling 41 feet in length. The bridge deck is
composed of concrete. The substructure is composed of mass concrete. However, only,
the interior bent is located in the river. The bridge railings and the two abutments will be
removed without dropping any components into Waters of the United States. There is
potential for components of the deck and the interior bent to be dropped into Waters of
the United States. The resulting temporarv fill associated with the concrete deck an,
interior bent is approximately 9 yc
METHODOLOGY
Information sources used in the pre-field investigation of the study area include:
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps (Niagra, Vass), U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) National Wetland Inventory Maps (Niagra, Vass), and NCDOT aerial
photographs of the project area (1:1200). Water resource information was obtained from
publications of the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources- Division of
Water Quality (DWQ, 1996) and from the NC Center for Geographic Information and
Analysis (Environmental Sensitivity Base Map of Moore County, 1995). Information
concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected species in the study area was
gathered from the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected species and species
of concern (15 January 1999), and the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of
rare species and unique habitats (checked 14 April 1999).
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by NCDOT
biologists Susan Brady and Teryn Smith on 14 January 1999. A survey for Michaux's
sumac (Rhus michauxii) was performed by Susan Brady, Teryn Smith and Shannon
Simpson on 5 May 1999. Plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified
and recorded. Wildlife identification involved using one or more of the following
observation techniques: active searching and capture, visual observations (binoculars),
and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks and burrows).
Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed utilizing delineation criteria
prescribed in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environmental
Laboratory, 1987).
2
DEFINITIONS
Definitions for areal descriptions used in this report are as follows: Project Study
Area denotes the area bounded by proposed ROW limits; Project Vicinity describes an
area extending 0.8 km (0.5 mi) on all sides of the project study area; and Project Region
is equivalent to an area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map.
WATER RESOURCES
The Little River [DWQ index no. 18-23-(10.3)] will be the only surface water
directly affected by the proposed project. This river lies within subbasin 030614 of the
Cape Fear River Basin and has a Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Best Usage
classification of WS-III CA HQW at this.location. The WS-III classification denote::
waters protected as water supplies, which are generally in low to moderately deveiopeC'
watersheds. The CA modifier identifies this as a Critical Area, which is an area adiacer°
to a water supply intake or reservoir and where the risk of pollution is greater trian in tn
remaining portions of the watershed. The supplemental classification of HQW denotes
High Quality Waters, which are rated as excellent based on biological ane
physical/ chemical characteristics through division monitoring or special studies.
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has initiated a basinwide approach to
water quality management for the 17 river basins within the state. The basinwide
approach allows for more intensive sampling of biological, chemical and physical data
that can be used in basinwide assessment and planning. Likewise, benthic
macroinvertebrates are intensively sampled for specific river basins. Benthic
macroinvertebrates have proven to be a good indicator of water quality because they are
sensitive to subtle changes in water quality, have a relatively long life cycle, are non-
mobile (compared to fish) and are extremely diverse. The overall species richness and
presence of indicator organisms help to assess the health of streams and rivers. River
basins are reassessed every five years to detect changes in water quality and to facilitate
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit review.
A benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring site on the Little River at SR 2023
[approximately 10.5 km (6.5 mi) downstream of the proposed project] was sampled three
times between 1988 and 1993. This site received taxa richness values between 33 and 35,
Biotic Index values between 4.46 and 4.60, and bioclassification ratings of Excellent.
Fish community structure sampling was done in April 1994 at the Little River/SR
2023 site. This site had a well-balanced trophic composition and good species diversity;
including darters, sunfish and suckers. This site received a rating of Good for fish
community structure.
3
The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake and
estuarine water quality monitoring stations strategically located for the collection of
physical and chemical water quality data. The waterbody's freshwater or saltwater
classification and corresponding water quality standards determine the type of water
quality data or parameters that are collected. An ambient monitoring station on the Little
River at SR 2023 was sampled between April 1992 and August 1993. The only
parameters with observations greater than the NC State Criteria are fecal coliform
bacteria, copper, and iron; with a total of 6 out of 48 samples exceeding the criteria. This
section of the Little River is listed as fully supporting its designated uses.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through
the NPDES Program. Any discharger is required to register for a permit. Three minor
point source dischargers are located within a 1.6 km (1.0 mi) radius of the project study
area, as listed in Table 1.
Table 1. NPDES Permit Holders in the Project Are..
Permit Holder Permit # Discharging to Allowed Dischar-
Vass Wastewater Treatment Plant N00074373 Little River 0.060 MGD
Vass Water Treatment Plant N00007838 UT Little River 0.020 MGD
Crystal Lake Condominiums N00057525 Mill Creek 0.012 MGD
impacts to surface waters are anticipated as a result of construction activities.
This may include scouring of the streambed, siltation, runoff of toxic substances, and
damage to the stream banks. Impacts to surface waters are best minimized by limiting
earth removal, vegetation removal, and in-stream activities.
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and
Sedimentation Control Guidelines in Sensitive Watersheds must be strictly enforced
during the construction stage of the project, as this section of the Little River is classified
as High Quality Water.
There is potential for components of the bridges to be dropped into Waters of the
U.S. during construction. The resulting temporary fill associated with the bridge removal
is approximately 19.3 m3 (26.0 yd3). NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal (BMP-BDR) must be applied for the removal of these bridges.
No waters classified as Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km
(1.0 mi) of the project study area.
4
BIOTIC RESOURCES
A Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype) community
dominates the landscape in the project study area. Canopy vegetation observed includes
black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), laurel oak (Q. laurifolia), water oak (Quercus nigra), post
oak (Q. stellata), overcup oak (Q. lyrata), and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua).
Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and white oak (Q. alba) are present on the higher elevation
areas. Understory vegetation includes red maple (Acer rubrum), American holly (Ilex
opaca), and saplings of the canopy species. The vine layer is comprised of Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), grapes (Vitis
spp.), and greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia). Giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea) is present
in places, especially along the edges of the forest near the road, and mistletoe
(Phoradendron serotinum) is growing on many of the trees.
East of the subject bridges. on both sides of the road, the Coastal Plain Sma"
Stream swamp community grades into a disturbed upland forest community. Vegetation
in this community inclucies sweetgum, tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera). Easter_
redcedar (juniperus virginiana), loblolly pine, and Southern magnolia (Alagnoha
grandiflora). Vines in this community include poison ivy, honeysuckle, grapes, and
greenbriei'.
Maintained/disturbed community is present along the edge of the road and around
the bridges. This community includes fescue (Festuca spp.), broomsedge (Andropogon
spp.), rushes (Juncus spp.), vetch (Vicia spp.), curly dock (Rumex crispus), dandelion
(Taraxacum offcinale), clover (Trifolium spp.), geranium (Geranium spp.), goldenrod
(Solidago spp.), honeysuckle, and blackberries (Rubus spp.).
One aquatic community, a Coastal Plain Perennial Stream, is found within project
boundaries. At this location, the Little River is somewhat braided, with two channels
bridged by the subject project. A connecting channel is present south of the road,
immediately adjacent to the fill between the subject bridges. At the time of the site visit
each channel of the river had a width of approximately 6.1 in (20.0 ft). The depth could
not be determined due to the fact that this is a blackwater river; the water is stained with
tannins and extremely dark. The substrate is sandy, and there is evidence of erosion near
the bridges. No submerged aquatic vegetation was observed at the time of the site visit.
Terrestrial fauna likely to occur in these communities includes Virginia opossum
(Didelphis virginiana), golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttali), muskrat (Ondatra
zibethicus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), white-tailed deer* (Odocoileus virginianus),
marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum), southern dusky salamander (Desmognathus

auriculatus), spring peeper* (Hyla crucifer), upland chorus frog* (Pseudacris triseriata),
eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), and rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta).
Avian fauna likely to occur in this area includes white-throated sparrow*
(Zonotrichia albicollis), song sparrow* (Melospiza melodia), blue-gray gnatcatcher*
(Polioptila caerulea), yellow-rumped warbler* (Dendroica coronata), rufous-sided
towhee* (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), red-eyed vireo* (Vireo olivaceous), white-eyed
vireo* (Vireo griseus), ovenbird* (Seiurus aurocapillus), prothonotary warbler
(Protonotaria citrea), northern parula (Parula americana), hooded warbler* (Wilsonia
citrina), prairie warbler* (Dendroica discolor), eastern phoebe* (Sayornis phoebe),
American crow* (Corvus brachyrhynchos). mallard* (Anas platyrhynchos), and turkey
vulture* (Cathartes aura).
Aquatic fauna likely to occur in the project area includes various species of
insects and their larvae, such as mayflies (Order Ephemeroptera), stoneflies (Order
Plecoptera), butterflies such as the red-spotted purple* (Limenitis arthemis astyanax) and
eastern tiger swallowtail* (Paphio giaucas), dragonflies/damselflies* (Order Odonata,
and caddisflies (Order Tricoptera). Fish which may be present include redfin pickerel
(Esox americanus), golden shiner (Notemigonous crysoleucas), yellow bullhead
(Ictalurus natalis), margined madtom (Noturis insignis), pirate perch (Aphedoaerus
sayanus), lined topminnow (Fundulus lineolatus), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus),
largemouth bass (Micropterus salmonoides), and sawcheek darter (Etheostoma
serriferum). Other aquatic fauna that may be present include green frog* (Rana
clamitans), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), yellowbelly slider* (Chrysemys
scripta), eastern musk turtle* (Sternotherus odoratus), redbelly water snake (Nerodia
erythrogaster), and cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorous).
IMPACTS TO COMMUNITIES
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of each
community present within the study area. Project construction may result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Table 2 summarizes potential quantitative
losses to these communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated impacts are
derived using the entire proposed right of way. Usually, project construction does not
require the entire right of way; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
6
Table 2. Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities.
Community type Impacts
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype) 0.22 (0.55)
Disturbed Upland Forest 0.01 (0.03)
Maintained/Disturbed 0.15 (0.34)
Total 0.38 (0.92)
Values cited are in hectares (acres).
Plant communities found within the proposed project area serve as nesting and
sheltering habitat for various wildlife. Replacing Bridge Nos. 149 and 150 may reduce
habitat for faunal species, thereby diminishing faunal numbers. However, due to the siz:
and scope of this project, it is anticipated that impacts to fauna will be minimal.
Areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road shoulders and
early successional habitat. Reduced habitat will displace some wildlife further from the
roaaway while attracting other wildlife by the creation of more eariv successional habii?
Animals temporarily displaced by construction activities will repopulate areas suitabie
for the species.
Aquatic communities are sensitive to even small changes in their environment.
Stream channelization, scouring, siltation, sedimentation and erosion from construction-
related work will affect water quality and biological constituents. Although direct
impacts may be temporary, environmental impacts from these construction processes may
result in long term or irreversible effects.
Impacts often associated with in-stream construction include increased
channelization and scouring of the streambed. In-stream construction alters the stream
substrate and may remove streamside vegetation at the site. Disturbances to the substrate
will produce siltation, which clogs the gills and/or feeding mechanisms of benthic
organisms (sessile filter-feeders and deposit-feeders), fish and amphibian species.
Benthic organisms can also be covered by excessive amounts of sediment. These
organisms are slow to recover or repopulate a stream.
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material at the
construction site alters the terrain. Alteration of the streambank enhances the likelihood
of erosion and sedimentation. Revegetation stabilizes and holds the soil thus mitigating
these processes. Erosion and sedimentation carry soils, toxic compounds and other
materials into aquatic communities at the construction site. These processes magnify
turbidity and can cause the formation of sandbars at the site and downstream, thereby
altering water flow and the growth of vegetation. Streamside alterations also lead to
7
more direct sunlight penetration and to elevation of water temperatures, which may
impact many species.
Anadromous fish are a valuable resource and their migration must not be
adversely impacted. The Draft Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish
Passage provides guidance to the NCDOT to ensure that replacement of existing stream
crossing structures will not impede the movement of anadromous fish. These guidelines
should be used with projects located in the Coastal Plain that cross perennial streams.
JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
Surface Waters and Wetlands
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Sectior_
328.3(a). Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR Section 328.3(b), are those areas that - ,
inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient
to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill
into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE),
and must follow the statutory provisions under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 134 .
Criteria to determine the presence of jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology. Soil core samples taken in the
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp community revealed soils with a sandy loam texture
and a Munsell color notation of l OYR 4/1 to a depth of ten inches. Vegetation in this
area includes black gum, laurel oak, water oak, overcup oak, and giant cane. Hydrologic
indicators include inundation, saturation, oxidized rhizospheres, and buttressing.
Therefore, jurisdictional wetlands are.present within the project boundaries.
The Little River is a jurisdictional surface water under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Discussion of the biological, physical, and water
quality aspects of this river are presented in previous sections of this report.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Anticipated total impact to surface waters from the proposed project is 48.8 linear
meters (160.0 linear feet). Anticipated impact to wetland areas in the proposed project
areas is 0.22 hectare (0.55 acre). Impacts are determined using the entire proposed ROW

width. Usually, project construction does not require the entire ROW; therefore, actual
surface water and wetland impacts may be considerably less.
There is the potential that components of the bridge decks, one abutment located
in the river, and one interior bent may be dropped into Waters of the United States during
construction. The resulting temporary fill associated with the bridge removal is
approximately 19.3 m3 (26.0 yd3). As this section of the Little River is classified as High
Quality Water, this project can be classified as Case 1, where in-water work is limited to
an absolute minimum. NCDOT will coordinate with the various resource agencies during
project planning to ensure that all concerns regarding bridge demolition are resolved.
Permit Requirements
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters and wetlands are anticipated. Ir
accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. a permit will r
required from the COE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of u. -
United Mate
A Section 404 Nationwide 23 Permit is likely to be applicable for all impacts t-.
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 that agency or department has determined
that pursuant to the council on environmental quality regulation for implementing the
procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act:
(1) 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) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
A North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality
General Certification is required prior to the issuance of the Section 404. Section 401
Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the
construction or other land manipulations.
9
Federally-Protected Species
Plants,and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened,
Proposed Endangered and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section
7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. As of 15
January 1999, the FWS lists the following federally protected species for Moore County
(Table 3). A brief description of each species' characteristics and habitat follows.
Table 3. Federally Protected Species for Moore County.
Scientific name Common name Status
Notropis mekistocholas Cape Fear shiner Endangered
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker Endangered
Rhus michauxi: Michaux's sumac Endangered
Schwaleea americana American chaffseed Endangere-
Endangered - a species that is in danger of extinction throughout alt or a significant portion of its ran:
Notropis mekistocholas (Cape Fear shiner) Lnaangerec
Animal Family: Cyprinidae
Date Listed: 9/26/87
The Cape Fear shiner is a small, moderately stocky minnow. Its body is flushea
with a pale silvery yellow, and a black band runs along its sides. The fins are yellowish
and somewhat pointed. The upper lip is black and the lower lip has a black bar along its
margin.
Cape Fear shiner habitat occurs in streams with gravel, cobble, or boulder
substrates. It is most often observed inhabiting slow pools, riffles, and slow runs
associated with water willow beds (Justicia americana). Juveniles can be found inhabiting
slack water, among large rock outcrops and in flooded side channels and pools. The Cape
Fear shiner is thought to feed on bottom detritus, diatoms, and other periphytes. Captive
specimens feed readily on plant and animal material.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION
NO EFFECT
Habitat in the form of streams with cobble, gravel, or boulder substrates or water
willow beds is not present in the project study area. The only water resource within the
project study area is a sandy-bottomed blackwater river without submerged aquatic
vegetation. A search of the NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and
unique habitats revealed no records of the Cape Fear Shiner in the project vicinity.
Therefore, no impact to the Cape Fear Shiner will result from project construction.
10

Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has plumage that is entirely black and
white except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The back of the
RCW is black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this
woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek patch
surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longieai pine
(Pinus palustris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least
50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be appropriate
habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in trees that are >60 years old and are
contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age. The foraging range of the RCW is u-
to 200.0 ha (500.0 ac). Trus acreage must be contiguous with suitable nesting s11:.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that ar:
infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies
from 3.6-30.3 m (12.0-100.0 ft) above the ground and average 9.1- 15.7 m (30.0-50.0 ft)
high. They can be identified by a large encrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree.
The RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch approximately 38 days
later.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Nesting and foraging habitat requirements considered necessary for the RCW are
not present within the project vicinity. There are no old growth stands of longleaf pine in
the vicinity of the project. The NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare species
and unique habitats has no record for the presence of the RCW within the project vicinity.
Therefore, no impact to the red-cockaded woodpecker will result from project
construction.
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac) Endangered
Plant Family: Anacardiaceae
Federally Listed: 9/28/89
Flowers Present: June
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub. The bases of the
leaves are rounded and their edges are simply or doubly serrate. The flowers of Michaux's
11
sumac are greenish to white in color. Fruits, which develop from August to September on
female plants, are red densely short-pubescent drupes.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. Michaux's sumac is dependent on
some sort of disturbance to maintain the openness of its habitat. It usually grows in
association with basic soils and occurs on sand or sandy loams. Michaux's sumac grows
only in open habitat where it can get full sunlight. Michaux's sumac does not compete well
with other species, such as Japanese honeysuckle, with which it is often associated. -
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION
NO EFFECT
Habitat considered suitable for Michaux`s sumac is present in the project study
area. There is sandy, disturbed habitat present along the length of the proiect. at the
edges of the road and in the fringe of disturbed upland forest community. A plant-by-
plant survey for this species was performed on 5 May by NCDOT biologists Susa;
Brady. Teryn Smith, and Shannon Simpson. No individuals of this species were
observed during the site visit, and the NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare
species and unique habitats has no record for the presence of Michaux's sumac in the
project vicinity. Therefore, no impact to Michaux's sumac will result from proiec`
construction.
Schwalbea americana (American chaffseed) Endangered
Plant Family: Scrophuiariaceae
Federally Listed: 9/29/92
Flowers Present: late May-early June
American chaffseed is an erect herb whose stems branch only at the base (if at all).
The entire plant is pubescent, with upwardly curving hairs. The narrow leaves are
alternate, lance-shaped to elliptic and stalkless. The leaves are three veined and become
progressively smaller towards the top. It bears solitary flowers in the axils of the upper
most leaves. The purplish-yellow flowers are arranged into racemes. The fruits are long
narrow capsules, enclosed in a loose-fitting sack-like structure.
American chaffseed occurs in open, moist pine flatwoods, fire-maintained
savannas, and ecotonal areas between peat wetlands and open grass-sedge systems. Soils
are generally sandy, acidic, and seasonally moist to dry. Fire is important in the
maintenance of open habitat for the American chaffseed.
12
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Habitat in the form of open, moist pine flatwoods, fire-maintained savannas, and
ecotonal areas between peat wetlands and open grass-sedge systems is not present within
the project boundaries. The habitat present within the project area consists of swamp
forest and disturbed upland forest, neither of which is suitable for this species. The NC
Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats has no record for
the presence of American chaffseed within the project vicinity. Therefore, no impact to
American chaffseed will result from project construction.
Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Specie::
There are 26 Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed for Moore County as of 15
January 1999. Federal Species of Concern are not afforded federal protection under the
ESA and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Federal Species of Concern are
defined as those species that may or may not be listed in the future. Inese species were
formerly candidate species, or species under consideration for listing for which there wa:
insufficient information to support a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered and Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are listed as Endangered,
Threatened, or Special Concern by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP)
list of rare plant and animal species are afforded state protection under the State
Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of
1979.
Table 4 lists Federal Species of Concern, the species state status (if afforded state
protection) and the presence of suitable habitat for each species in the study area. This
species list is provided for information purposes as the status of these species may be
upgraded in the future.
13

Table 4. Federal Species of Concern in Moore County.
Scientific Name Common Name NC Status Habitat
Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow SC Yes
Heterodon simus Southern hognose snake SR Yes
Moxostoma robustum Robust redhorse SC No
Pituophis melanoleucus Northern pine snake SC Yes
melanoleucus
Alasmidonta varicosa Brook floater T Yes
Atrytone arogos arogos Arogos skipper SR No
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe T Yes
Gomphus parvidens carolinus Sandhills clubtail dragonfly SR
Lampsilis cariosa Yellow lampmusse T
Amorpha georgiana var. Georgia indigo-bus; 1 .
georgiana
Astragalus michauxii Sandhills milkvetch. C/PT Yes
Dionea muscinucc: Venus flvtra C-S " No
Lunatorium restnosun Resinous boneset T-SC Ye:
Kalmia cuneata White wicky E-SC/PC No
Lilium iridollae Sandhills bog lily C/PT No
Lindera subcoriacea Bog spicebush E No
Lotus helleri Heller's trefoil C Yes
Oxvpolis ternata Savanna cowbane W1 Yes
Parthenium radfordii Wavyleaf wild quinine W2 No
Potamogeton confervoides Conferva pondweed C* No
Pyxidanthera barbulata var. Sandhills pyxie-moss E Yes
brevistyla
Rhynchospora crinipes Alabama beaksedge E Yes
Rudbeckia heliopsidis Sun-facing coneflower E No
Solidago verna Spring-flowering goldenrod E/PT Yes
Stylisma pickeringii var. Pickering's dawnflower E Yes
pickeringii
Xyris scabrifolia Roughleaf yellow-eyed grass C No
"E"--An Endangered species is defined as one whose continued existence as a viable component of the
State's flora is determined to be in jeopardy.
"T"--A Threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
"SC"--A Special Concern species is define d as one which requires monitoring but may be collected and sold
under the provisions of the Plant Protection and Conservation Act, unless it is also listed as
Threatened or Endangered, in which case only propagated material may be traded or sold.
"C"--A Candidate species is defined as one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20
populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction (and
sometimes also by direct exploitati on or disease). The species is also either rare throughout its range
or disjunct in North Carolina from a main range in a different part of the country or the world.
14

"SR'--A Significantly Rare species is defined as one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-
20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction (and
sometimes also by direct exploitation or disease), and generally more common elsewhere in its range.
"WI"--A Watch Category 1 species is defined as a rare species whose status in North Carolina is relatively
well known and which appears to be relatively secure at this time.
"W2"--denotes a species with questionable taxonomy, including taxa of dubious validity and taxa under
study and potentially to be named.
"/P_"--denotes a species which has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered, Threatened, or Special
Concern, but has not yet completed the listing process.
"*"--No specimen observed in fifty years.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit. nor were any o
these species observed. A review of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database
of rare species and unique habitats revealed no records of Federal Species of Concern is
or near the project study area. However, there is a record of Southeastern panic gras_
(Panicum tenerum) approximately 1.2 km (0.7 mi) southwest of the project iocatior.
This species is listed as Significantly Rare in North Carolina, and is not protected n
federal is. .
Piease contact me at [phone] extension 335 if you have any further
questions regarding this project.
cc: David Schiller. Natural Systems Unit Head
File B-3356
15