20021521 Ver 1_Complete File_20020923

2o¢r ??? 052
2022
``t' ' 206
'!\ \o \Ta
2Ce7 aces '-A:
10 2030
20A3 2031 •?
EvwOrou N
Ch 0713 \
2=
2 t ~
20.1 \ r \U
2041 2041 `•? \G1 \N
? 10 2M P
2M 2034 BRIDGE \s
)Me .- NO. 100 \N
....? y ..av.r41o1. Salt -
' dw za3, 1 Y:.
2041 Gti
jl? Cp• ?
?;" 2040 2035 Z \N*
NNTE 204
1002 204.3 zow
ND zass F `1'. ?_
POCOSN . i
SAY 2030 •~ 'I
2044 /.T.r.
2044 ? '!.-? cn
?i
f 1 f
r 1.4 /?? ' 1
a... n
.., ? vF s t .
A :
r1.rr o... f u ?
• S A M P S O N
sw.r4 OiM
' u
4 n l I
5
D..w
47 '
?.
NORTH CARO[ NA DBPARTMRNT OF TRAMTMTATiON
4 DMINM OF HIGHWAYS
pitomcT DBVZLOPMWT AND
l e ?% %-A RNVIIIOMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
rr •r n.••r
BRIDGE NO. 100
SR 1246/SR 2035 OVER SOUTH RIVER
SAMPSON/CUMBERLAND COUNTY
B-3514
VICINITY MAP
0 1 2 3 FIGURE I
GRAPHIC SCALE (MILES)
KNNV M
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
+I
September 14, 2000 ' srrp 19 2000
iii: [•:.Niair?? ,<<`,. .
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
COPY FOR YOUR
INFORMATION
Thank you for your July 28, 2000 request for information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) on the potential environmental impacts of proposed bridge replacements
Sampson County, North Carolina. This report provides scoping information and is provided in
accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (16 U.S.C. 661-
667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-
1543). This report also serves as initial scoping comments to federal and state resource agencies
for use in their permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace the following
bridge structures:
1. B-3698 Bridge No. 15 on NC 50 over Young's Swamp;
--Z: B-3699 Bridge No. 67 on NC 903 over Coharie Creek; and,
3. B-3514 Bridge No. 100 on SR 1246 over South River.
The following recommendations are provided to assist you in your planning process and to
facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we recommend that proposed
highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors, or
previously developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. Areas
exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed and region should be
t
avoided. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings
and/or occur on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures
that maintain natural water flows and hydraulic regimes without scouring, or impeding fish and
wildlife passage, should be employed. Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced
through wetland areas. Roadway embankments and fill areas should be stabilized by using
appropriate erosion control devices and techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in
sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps of the Roseboro, Dobbersville, and Ingold 7.5
Minute Quadrangles show wetland resources in the specific work areas. However, while the
NWI maps are useful for providing an overview of a given area, they should not be relied upon in
lieu of a detailed wetland delineation by trained personnel using an acceptable wetland
classification methodology. Therefore, in addition to the above guidance, we recommend that
the environmental documentation for this project include the following in sufficient detail to
facilitate a thorough review of the action.
1. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted by
filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory. Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987 Corps of
Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps).
2. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made to
identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts. Opportunities to
protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation easement, should be
explored at the outset.
The document presents a number of scenarios for replacing each bridge, ranging from in-place to
relocation, with on-site and off-site detours. The Service recommends that each bridge be
replaced on the existing alignment with an off-site detour.
The enclosed list identifies the federally-listed endangered and threatened species, and Federal
Species of Concern (FSC) that are known to occur in Sampson County. The Service
recommends that habitat requirements for the listed species be compared with the available
habitats at the respective project sites. If suitable habitat is present within the action area of the
project, biological surveys for the listed species should be performed. Environmental
documentation that includes survey methodologies, results, and NCDOT's recommendations
based on those results, should be provided to this office for review and comment.
FSC's are those plant and animal species for which the Service remains concerned, but further
biological research and field study are needed to resolve the conservation status of these taxa.
Although FSC's receive no statutory protection under the ESA, we would encourage the NCDOT
to be alert to their potential presence, and to make every reasonable effort to conserve them if
found. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for information on

species under state protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Tom
McCartney at 919-856-4520, ext. 32.
Sincerely,
. Garland B. Pardue
Ecological Services Supervisor
Enclosures
cc:
COE, Wilmington, NC (David Timpy)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessey)
NCDNR, Northside, NC (David Cox)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:09/14/00:919/856-4520 extension 32:\4brdgssc.otl
t
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
August 8, 2000
MEMORANDUM
M rn
NCDENR
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager,
NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
Through: ,hn Dorney, NC Division of Water Quality
From: John Hennes , w
Subject: Scoping comments on proposed Sampson County Bridge Replacement Projects:
B-3698, Bridge No. 15 on NC 50 over Young's Swamp,
B-3699, Bridge No. 67 on NC 903 over Great Coharie Creek, and
B-3514, Bridge No. 100 on SR 1246 (Butler Island Bridge Road) over South
River.
This memo is in reference to your correspondence dated 28 July 2000 (received August 4, 2000), in which
you requested scoping comments for the referenced bridge projects within the Cape Fear River Basin.
Preliminary analysis of the project reveals that Bridge No. 15 will span Young's Swamp. The DWQ index
number for the stream is 18-74-19-1. Bridge No. 67 traverses the Great Coharie Creek; the DWQ stream
index number is 18-68-1. Bridge No. 100 crosses the South River; the DWQ stream index number is 18-
68-12-(0.5). All of the streams are classified as C Swamp.
The Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider the following environmental issues for the
proposed project:
A. In planning documents and preliminary designs, NCDOT should consider the possibility that buffer
rules could be implemented in the future within the Cape Fear River Basin.
B. There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required,
it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental
documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted
that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance
of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
C. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road
closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ
requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
D. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent '
practicable.
1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
08/10/00
Page 2
E. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by
DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to streams in excess of 150 linear feet.
F. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will
be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
G. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. However, if the new structure is to be a Culvert, it
should be countersunk, by a minimum of one foot, to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic
organisms passage through the crossing. Design and placement of culverts and other structures
including temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may result in
disequilibrium of wetlands or stream beds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream of the
above structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium shall be
maintained if requested in writing by DWQ. Additionally, when roadways, causeways or other fill
projects are constructed across FEMA-designated floodways or wetlands, openings such as culverts
or bridges must be provided to maintain the natural hydrology of the system as well as prevent
constriction of the floodway that may result in destabilization of streams or wetlands.
H. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) 1, mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that
mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values. In accordance with-the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506
(h)(3) 1, the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
K. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for storm water management. More specifically, storm water should not be permitted to
discharge directly into the creek. Instead, storm water should be designed to drain to a properly
designed storm water detention facility/apparatus.
L. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool,
their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior
to permit approval.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met
and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information,
please contact John Hennessy at [phone].
Pc: D.id T?mpy, Corps of Engineers
M4G954 ? USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
File Copy
Central Files

JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
dM?o
July 28, 2000
John E. Hennessy
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Dear Mr. Hennessy:
DAVID MCCOY
SRCRETARY
7
4
WIaLANI)?
lATFI? Ql)f'JTY
SUBJECT: Sampson County
B-3698, Bridge No. 15 on NC 50 over Young's Swamp,
-B-3699, Bridge No. 67 on NC 903 over Coharie Creek, and
B-3514, Bridge No. 100 on SR 1246 (Butler 4sland Bridge Road) over South River
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch of the Division of
Highways has begun studying proposed improvements to the subject bridge replacement
projects. The projects are included in the North Carolina Department of Transportation's 2000-
2006 Transportation Improvement Program and are scheduled for right-of-way in fiscal year
2002 and construction in fiscal year 2003.
Information regarding the projects is provided in the following paragraphs and the project
locations are shown on the attached maps.
Ca lta 1
B-3698, Bridle No. 15 on NC 50 over Young's Swamp, Sampson County C Sw 16- 7y- 19-1
The existing two-lane structure was built in 1947, crosses over Young's Swamp and is
51 feet long and 24 feet wide.
The following alternatives will be studied for this bridge project:
Do Nothing
- Rehabilitate the Existing Structure
Replace Existing Structure on Existing Location, temporary detour east side
Replace Existing Structure on Existing Location, utilize off-site detour
If the structure is replaced at its existing location utilizing an off-site detour route, NC 50
will be closed to through traffic during the construction of the replacement structure.
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 WESSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27899-1548
July 28, 2000
Page 2
B-3699, Bridge No. 67 on NC 903 over 4!oharie Creek, Sampson County
C sr..., 16-48-1
The existing two-lane structure, constructed in 1961, crosses over Coharie Creek and is
180 feet long and 24.2 feet wide.
The following alternatives will be studied for this bridge project:
- Do Nothing
- Rehabilitate the Existing Structure
- Replace Existing Structure on Existing Location, temporary detour east side
- Replace Existing Structure on Existing Location, temporary detour west side
- Replace Existing Structure on Existing Location, utilize off-site detour
If the structure is replaced at its existing location utilizing an off-site detour route,
NC 903 will be closed to through traffic during the construction of the replacement structure.
B-3514 Brid a No. 100 on SR 1246 over the South River Sampson Count
Q Sw 16- be - iZ - 10.5
The existing two-lane structure, constructed in 1949, crosses over the South River and is
242 feet long and 24 feet wide.
The following alternatives will be studied for this bridge project:
Do Nothing
- Rehabilitate the Existing Structure
- Replace Existing Structure on Existing Location, temporary detour east side
Replace Existing Structure on Existing Location, temporary detour west side
- Replace Existing Structure on New Location on East Side, maintain traffic
We would appreciate any information you have that would be helpful in evaluating
potential environmental impacts of the above projects. Any comments regarding potential
impacts to Emergency Response Units (fire, rescue, police, etc.) would be especially helpful. If
applicable, please identify any permits and/or approvals required by your agency.
Please note that there will be no formal interagency scoping meeting for this project.
This letter constitutes solicitation for scoping comments related to this project. It is desirable
that you respond by August 25, 2000; so that your comments can be used in the preparation of a
proposed Categorical Exclusion.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Drew Joyner, Project
Development Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], extension 269.
Sincerely,.
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Attachments
P)
BRIDGE DEMOLITION FORM
DATE: July 19, 2000
PROJECT T.I.P. NUMBER: B-3514
STRUCTURE NUMBER: 81100
COUNTY: Sampson
FACILITY NAME: SR 1246
BODY OF WATER: South River
DIVISION NO. 3

1q.,4 ?J kuivur
TIIrOIU.'.!'1 SI(":
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This project contains a bridge removal over Waters of the United States. Bridge
No. 100 over South River on SR 1246 was built in 1949, is 242 feet long and 24
feet wide and has a sufficiency rating of 4 out of a possible 100.
STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION:
The superstructure of Bridge No 100 consists of a reinforced concrete deck on
steel I-Beams. The substructure consists concrete caps and timber piles with spill
through abutments.
MAXIMUM POTENTIAL FILL: None anticipated for this project
CLASSIFICATION OF WATERS: C Sw
MORATORIUM: None anticipated for this project
SECTION 7: None anticipated for this project
v O W (I
O. m m m j m v O
/- N 1- w
t0 N m
V
I v
V
I O
N
T - fV v O ?O N m v O ?D N

I
I -- m
I I .,
?

I ?
I v I o ,-,

I I )

I t
?
H F

V)

m

i

8
0 I I w

,I N
0
e
Q
il ± '1 I o _ ! ? L
l P

10
I" cn m m v 'o

I
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
I I j PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH

i I BRIDGE NO. 100
j j I III
N SR 12461SR 2035 OVER SOUTH RIVER
I r l SAMPSONI C UMBERLAND COUNTY
B-3514

m °m 1Dm Nm I I ? .`Dn ' vmi vi vii
SHEET OF
' - - -- YER T/Cit L --? LYO R/lON-Ti1 L CL IARANCE'S - -
PROACH OTOA0WAe CGt{/i!t sl??l It?e?i> >2 ='l? 047 _
?2, Appr. Rd'wy.'WidfS
1J. APP r. Mtdios
s T r. r. i Nor.. c? __ •. -- • - _ ?j ? / 4

Wes i
-- _ S T ,e? v G T v ,2 E O,g T .4 G?O R A,.:6 N E F-r
25 - ? .per ? ?
R A, 14-- T -f
7-41
1 1,
z4f -0
4 -3
7
COPY- NCOOT

7 /Z
W 5 s ,E?OX?/

G 3 o c r, c

S.o LEAl 6. rN

c. :30-2-
D .30Z -
3a -3 -
F
30.3
30' .BR G. To 6A? co

,
0'.
.29
-
z 9`7
29' 6
2 9 - 7"
2 9'- 7,,
29 7" Z5?_?L,

BRIDGE DEMOLITION FORM
DATE: July 19, 2000
PROJECT T.I.P. NUMBER : B-3698
STRUCTURE NUMBER: 81015
COUNTY: Sampson
FACILITY NAME: N.C. 50
BODY OF WATER: Young's Swamp
DIVISION NO. 3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This project contains a bridge removal over Waters of the United States. Bridge
No. 15 over Young's Swamp on NC 50 was built in 1947 is 51 feet long and 24
feet wide and has a sufficiency rating of 37.9 out of a possible 100.
STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION:
The superstructure of Bridge No 15 consists of a reinforced concrete deck on
reinforced concrete deck girders. The substructure consists of concrete caps and
timber piles with vertical abutments.
MAXIMUM POTENTIAL FILL:
CLASSIFICATION OF WATERS:
MORATORIUM:
SECTION 7:
None anticipated for this project
C Sw
None anticipated for this project
None anticipated for this project
O
V
l m
Y Q
? O
Q ?D
M
I N
n m
N Q
N O
N o
= N
=
O Q
O p
p

l

N D Q
ID N
11 ,+l N N O 10 N CD Q
_ N - _ O O
O
?
I 1 I
1
/
J

I 1 1
1 1
m I

I 1

1

O ?
t=

I
?
? I I
1
I
I
I
/
y
I w
0 I Z
O O
° o a- r ?
?

0 0

3
I ' II
x?
.0 0 Y E
C

? ? I
I ? I
I I

I I I o
o

I v
I I I ??
L - L- Li - L j - L
I
M1 ?!1 N N N Lo N O O

N NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH

BRIDGE NO. 15
NC 50 OVER YOUNGS SWAMP
SAMPSON COUNTY
B-3698
O
l!1 co
Q w
Q O
Q w
nl N
n m Q
N N O
N iD
= N
= ao
O Q
O p
O

SHEET OF

YL'RT/CAL ? ?YOR/t'ONT,QL CLlArl11NC'!.r
..V-,dya Alo. Cour7fy
jgir,t0ACAe RoAACV, WA Y ?Octi?c tIeA IfaA+! JZ, 11, a*7
a 2 App r. :.-y. w,eks
i 7. Ti t'»

-5'-r r V G T v,,2 E Of? T ,U Gt a R ,e S N F E T -

29"

24-0' C? Q
e r'l I r ?' Z- S
?5=?" o T
t G r6c?- ?s , Ze 14"Hx 1(7,

Z12
.. prt.tAlwNC-

cc=, - Hcz)c,
BRIDGE DEMOLITION FORM
DATE:
PROJECT T.I.P. NUMBER:
STRUCTURE NUMBER:
COUNTY:
FACILITY NAME:
BODY OF WATER:
DIVISION NO.
July 19, 2000
B-3699
81067
Sampson
N.C. 903
Coharie Creek
3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This project contains a bridge removal over Waters of the United States. Bridge
No.67 is a two-lane structure, built in 1961 over Coharie Creek and is 180 feet
long and 24.2 feet wide. The bridge has a sufficiency rating of 17.4 out of a
possible 100.
STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION:
The superstructure of Bridge No. 67 consists of prestressed concrete channels
with an asphalt-wearing surface. The substructure consists of prestressed, precast
concrete caps and timber piles with vertical abutments.
MAXIMUM POTENTIAL FILL:
CLASSIFICATION OF WATERS:
MORATORIUM:
None anticipated for this project
C Sw-ORW+
None anticipated for this project
SECTION 7: None anticipated for this project
-? K ,c rc ?v s.y?-E r-
PERT/C?,L OV77,4 L Ct cq,Q,q,y ct-s
fy G
CC V-17
°-?
'oA c?y RoA oWA y J1 JJ e*7
'P ?"• .4?c diva
?`o I Alor/l. CI -
41
' /?iC °1Q3
?` u V STA'? L ? - ? ! `?
5 r .e 41C 7- cl e E D "q 1Z 1-71

- 2? C Q

C?,-6 HT 4?,
h
3
,i4. al
R A I L_ 7-yp Z. 33
_ tit, Z3
_ .__ 51 56 7oP or W,N4W4"

N m v O w N
r ?D t0 ?p Z n m
v v
v O
v w
M N
M m
N v
N
- O
N
- p 'p N m Y O l0 N m
?O In v' v M M N
1
I ?\
?
0
?
$ I

%
D

a

O
10
t:

co
Qw? ?I I i w
I I ?
III ! I
??
m I
r I
I
I I
?
i r
!I
? j I I .
--.
! I ?

II.' i ?

as 3 A

i
' 7

li
,
I
I 1 1 1
a
0
fn
w
?
I
!
I
! I;

I a

w???? i l i I u

i i I I row I
L I ?, I I lD 1/l IA Q v M M N P

%u zt
? ? r ? 1„ ? II
I
I

O??
! LL !
M

• NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
I ! I I : PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH

I
! I ! I I BRIDGE NO. 67

N NC 903 OVER GREAT COHARIE CREEK
_.._; . SA"SON COUNTY
I ' t 1 B-3699
-
- ? - 1 - ]
N m v O a N
f? t0 ?D ip 0 m
Q v
Q O
Y W
M N
M m
N v
N O
N

SHEET 0
I

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
September 20, 2002
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402
ATTENTION: David Timpy
NCDOT Coordinator, Division 3
Dear Sir:
021521
LYNDO TIL?L??: r?
SI:('RF FAR)'
.-?. ?V
S ,
Subject: Replacement of Bridge No. 100 over the South River, Sampson and
Cumberland Counties. Federal Project No. BRZ-1246(1), State Project No.
8.2281201, T.I.P. No. B-3514, Division 3.
Please find enclosed copies of the planning document report for the above
referenced project. The bridge will be replaced at its existing location with a new
structure approximately 255 ft (77.7 meters) long with a clear roadway width of 28 ft (8.5
meters). The approaches will be 22 ft (6.6 meters) of pavement with 6-foot (1.8-meter)
shoulders. Traffic will be maintained during construction on an off-site detour using
existing roads.
Bridge No. 100 over the South River will be replaced on existing location with a
5-span cored slab bridge. No temporary causeway or bridge is required because the
bridge is proposed to be constructed by top down construction methods. No coffer dams
will be used.
The existing bridge has reinforced concrete deck on I-beams supported by
reinforced concrete caps on timber piles. Bridge No. 100 will be removed without
dropping any components into Waters of the United States during construction. All
guidelines for bridge demolition and removal will be followed in addition to Best
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters.
Jurisdictional wetlands are located adjacent to the South River in the
Bottomland/Swamp Forest community. Impacts to wetlands are 0.009 ac of fill and
0.024 ac of mechanized clearing.
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 NCDOT"ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
f
This project is classified as Case 2 which allows no work in the water during
moratorium periods associated with fish migration, spawning and larval recruitment into
nursery areas. An in-water work moratorium from April 1 to June 15 will be required for
this project to minimize impacts to spawning sunfish. Also, all measures will be taken as
outlined in the Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR Section 771.115(b). Therefore, we
do not anticipate requesting an Individual Permit, but propose to proceed under
Nationwide Permit 23 in accordance with 67 FR 2020, 2082; January 15, 2002.
We eanticipate a 401 General Certification (WQC #3361) will apply to this project,
and are providing 2 ' copies 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 Rachelle
Beauregard at 733-1142.
Sincerely;)
M"/. ,
Mr. V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Manager
PDEA-Office of the Natural Environment
cc: w/attachment
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality (2 copies)
Mr. Garland Pardue, USFWS
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Allen Pope, P.E., Division 3 Engineer
Ms. Drew Joyner, P.E., Project Planning Engineer
Mr. Mason Herndon, Division 3 Environmental Officer
Mr. David Franklin, COE, Wilmington (Cover Letter Only)
I
tc
r ? -1

`? In ram Rd.

F PROJECT
r LOCATION
d
m?
?"r'B Y? j ?
,j.
rOad?'at ? J
? O
?
ar
1
Brldo, _ }
:C
SOyn a
?

MINITY MAP
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
VICINITY SAMPSON / CUMBERLAND COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2281201 (B-3514)
MAPS BRIDGE X100 OVER SOUTH RIVER
ON SR 1246 / SR 2035
I SHEET OF 7/11/02 SHEET OF
LEGEND
-WLB- WETLAND BOUNDARY
C?'-,77k WETL
AND
V1?111La DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
® DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE WATER
• • DENOTES MECHANIZED
• • •• • • • CLEARING
-r-- FLOW DIRECTION
TB - TOP OF BANK
-WE --- EDGE OF WATER
- C - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- -E- - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
---lk- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG- - NATURAL GROUND
--ems- PROPERTY LINE
-TOE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-PDE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
-EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
-------- --- WATER SURFACE
LIVE STAKES
BOULDER
-- COIR FIBER ROLLS
5 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER

PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
(DASHED LINES DENOTE
EXISTNG STRUCTURES)
SINGLE TREE
WOODS LINE
(?lmm
a

DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
VANE
RIP RAP
RIP RAP ENERGY
DISSIPATOR BASIN
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
SAMPSON / CUMBERLAND COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2281201 (B-3514)
BRIDGE #100 OVER SOUTH RIVER
ON SR 1246 / SR 2035
t
SHEET OF 7 / 11 / 02
i
z
z
OU M ?(N
mod,, ? ? ??Ca p E•? ?
?? r'l UC7? O v)
ri)
.`Or
00 04
SOU E" o O
a ocl\ w
wsz o
z
47
00
??
x
IS a
f
PA Od'?a
v] p".
Nd Q, j\
w
v?
?P o
o SOK KD COtJ?
DUMB
d? SOU fl4
/
5 w ?°`%? ??? o0
V? ???. mod, %c
c^p Ob `•'?O`?J? Y`? c??
J
O r?
?? P
J LJ I W
?a I <
a-- :? eV
LL U U CD X z ^ '?
.r --i
- ° Fu- Lr) I I- fall -4.4
m m 0 U M „'*"y
W N < N La J N
N 0w L4
I LL-U CL o V) N CL U z (~
Lf) LL- :2 cc) V) < d4
z LLJ LL -j ZQ I ?Q UW J?
LL I O O a7 w
aG c?V
j zz? o0
O U U
** O (n\ w 8 En
* w > p z
r Cw70 W
* * C to
b
* *
o
LL)
LLI ?n - Q ?
< z
O Cy 3? ¢ J
O CL Y V-Z Jo
Ln w CC Z
cr- LC) J _ CV E Q J
CV CN Q 00 N N J F-
V) V)
3
N> O Q W 0 -k- ~OU ZLL.J
Q W -'J - Z O
J J U W+ p
U W +
I
i? co W
00+ gu7
II •
i
83ni8 Hlnos
»3AI8 H1nos p
- _ ' - ---------- ----------- _
Z
?Ln
NN
V) Z
3 N > H wl Z CD
-1
+
I a_

L0
U
w I N
o © + b
9?•SZ+?z 'o?Sld I ?
3
N

I I
a 00 Q
00+f U7
M

O Ln

M
N
C\j
I
1

`

o z I
U E
I V) 0 m O
J C?
?
1- I
N I N>?
J
W
OX
f-WLl- I
JJID
I Uw+

N
` v
i

1
1??
j
N v1
y?0
N n
?QT

O
Ql
C
Tk-
i I N
H
J
I ?~
I m
I N? ?
w- rc
3 I? ?
I ? :a
I?
I
o?
o
tiry
?g
O
ti
O
O
Ln
? CIA

z z w O
o
no
?
a
r,
.44
? q o h
Ca c H ?

Fx? W

z °° 0
"4 o
O
+
00 z ?D
w O U
O H
U O
o
N to O Cn
wsz o
A 0. O
F
Va" 0 W
O rA ? 0.4
W
O
+ x

N
O
O
N
O
O
?n
N
O
0
v
N ?

O
o b
M
N

O
O
C\j
N

?
.
I
i
0 ? ? a

a a

E C
m
C N N C
Z p
O N
C C

H U
C
N m M

w U E O

a

W
LL
Q aN m
E
o
c
W
U
Q

: D
C
U
0 m
o
U-
m
co
C _? U
m m

Z C.
LL
}

Q N c
C 'C P
L N L N N
C)
D
y U (D
U p o

F-

Q
c - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
U > a m
HL "3 o
W C
p
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
W

Z

N
-
-
-
-

og c
QZw
J a m coo
EE
o
H F
-
c
w
3 N
C c p
0
a)
m O O
LL m
3 0
0
- - - - - - - - -

J
_J - - - - - - - - - - - -
LL
7
` W
?
m

fa - - - - - - - -

O
O ?

J
O - - - - - - - - -
.? O O
N
N

d ? J

F -

g

o
r
o s
? N
m
N N
m
N

e,
U e N
? N
m
k
a
0
v
d
x
?a
A?
h
IRI
F
rrvv a
?P
h
O
h
z
h
h
aE
a°
?i
z?
w8
x
a
U
O
M
N
0
0
?o
0
N
0

Q0 ? f U

1L ? i
to CNN
?'
-
- -
a
N ~
N?
N ti O
V ? }
h N
?' V h
a' O h
60 w?
22
Go
U
Z/
1
ao ? $
N ?
U +
IL, O y
?a
h?
y R,
I
O
O
K

COO
O
w
U
W
104
-' ? WWG ? ,? pd Fi
?A a C4
W
?2
Z
,
?l
wU
O
a
Q
a?
a
o?
o?
Q?
c
0
0
L
c
Ag

o
c^
r O
0 0 ?
II II ?
?o ?o II
N N 0
00
m w Ci
0 0
IL a
a
U- IL W
OC
? N
Z ?
J O
„ H
•

e O OQ ile

Q
N
O O
10 10 10
x II II
(? ? ap
- II II II II

w 0 C
4
N
= H 1
N

A
N
O
aR
G
p S $ r

w h
0
w
Q O N °
• { N 2

o IL
o
o
Q r 'n
d

tpl5r-ff [OzigzZ08 ?.Z?d pfd
7rm,
0%j)jAoa\5„.
L ,a,i zvo3-si
d
a?
ae
CIO ?s
5
b. ?
II ? M ? M M
?QOCX vWi
P

J
S
N
tD N
J

?
oo+
i
t
I I11
I i
IN
I?
I?
12

oo+s I

i
IN
N
I

_
D
J
V)
v
I

I ?
J
N
c
Oo+1bZ

0
J
S
?

N 0
J
S
N
kuo
I??ZR
bNCh
I a 4o??a?i
oo,,C??
nl
a
?uu
6
?8O
00#90
a
N
uW4
m
3
P
ig

/C03
t
C3 m R ? ?x
/ ( C3 C3
a $?
II II II II / C3
4o?tiQ: w f .M
?~ a$?
{3a )e / 10
a V,
bb/LI/8 ysd•60°b15C8\1L 0C050)M021\tuoldbl5f-9\S°?P?-'!3-Id3S\P'?8\s?'1'
I

W t t r
•' r

?
?? J 1
`
? \WP 4
?
yy
??
N YA W
CA !- W ?
N N ;p
a
N ?
a
0%8hNZ
i
J
1
0
O 5
;yQ?NWW>Q
?? V W
Y?Y J
W -0

? r
0 r6l
N E
Z
mll
0
u3i ---
i
b

a c
z ? Z
19
l7
O
h0
q
W
= z
N_
A?
W
R 1
r °D I 1•- ? (G
H
cr- co
-- - N U--- 00 m co rLi o (O O C%l
°° O w o
? N m?
z cr) rn z
s zq Z N N v
W r .. n O O W s
gQ ? p f - 1? Q CZ) CD
O ' `I OH
- - i V) O O W lam'' - - - - LQ Lc) w
?T ? m
< O O MY-
b I Q l1) Lf) N
3 J O
Q Z
i ` (D ' U O LU U
I N N
S I Q Q ° W W
? I-
-a -- cr) U) OO
•i r 1 00
- - J J Q7 co
W 1 - -- NN
z i
•! ? o RR m
- ----- --- O0 z -- - OR O C0
2 d ? 1 1
J
J
J
7
n• a '?
O b
J J 110 W
a g ?SS88 '" 9
+„8S
? + + +
y N
o N H H H H
F 0
N oQ?o
in 8 8 o
9 Ml ?
, R
® + + + + i
! Y` H N H V A
19 L
emu!
p Z

°m e°i ? no
? g go
r ?n
O yW
0 m
W m`tWr
WO!
W W 7- 1-
¢xs -ao
W W?
( M ppJ
d?
J W W
d?
J U
p
) <
pp
> (U!?
1?Y p
W/>w
t ?
t°iY0

W
?
WW
Q
<
W

?3 n
X3 O
3 WnW
ago Ww
w- Wn
ar
s
W
J r O ° W o
t! W >
W
Z SY °
~
no
? JO
<
GGG rNr rJ

° r?J

ILL

3 d

r
Q o n ?o p
so n
nn so ?

d
g?
aB
"
1
g
?°

?
rs J
?rQ-
°" illlyyy <J °`? s S ? ? ? so
X?
6 X?
66 pXQ
C
?sj 0??
p X!
W
6 oo G?w?
a
a ?
« ?
s 6
? dm
p .Z..
q
q
QQ q
Q< `
y
<t {
J
?<V Q
6
? Q
"?W • 2 ? j
n? Z
6<
W -? y
1
i 6?3336W 6 M

d<
d< `
d i
d<m c
i c,
6<m
6
W
W
gm

V cm
U co
U
V
W
W
pW
L
W
W
s
Z
Oq
W
z
r
QW
< W
W w
O
J
e! a
W <
W GC
d W
W
r
z a

5 - /
r?
L?
fY T
d N?
LLJ
Q-)
Q
Ll-
(Q--
v
IL IO
W?
O
C n? Q
V
Lij
? •Y19CH\IL0L0801l10N\+? 1 d\f

M w

'n t0
zz

z
_
" 0

>

o
m W

z
?
O
e N W
?
t
7 O
o
J o

1
J

1

Sampson/Cumberland County
SR 1246/SR 2035 (Butler Island Bridge Road)
Bridge No. 100 over South River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1246(1)
State Project No. 8.2281201
T.I.P. No. B-3514
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
0215211
APPROVED:
((A.Wi am D. Gilmore, P.E., Ma ager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
L41 so /o /
ATE
9 zx/?
Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
4
DAT
Sampson/Cumberland County
SR 1246/SR 2035 (Butler Island Bridge Road)
Bridge No. 100 over South River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1246(1)
State Project No. 8.2281201
T.I.P. No. B-3514
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
April 2001
Documentation Prepared By Ko & Associates, P.C.
C2?. ' &&L-
L. J. ard, P.E.
Project Manager - Ko & Associates
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
?-?k K 6, -
Tho as R. Kendig, AICP
Consultant Engineering U a ead
4
Robert Andrew oyner, P.E.
Project Development Engineer
2
Project Commitments
Sampson/Cumberland County
SR-1246/SR 2035 (Butler Island Bridge Road)
Bridge No. 100 over South River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1246(1)
State Project No. 8.2281201
T.I.P. No. B-3514
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit #23 Conditions, the General Nationwide
Permit Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State
Consistency Conditions, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for
Bridge Demolition and Removal, General Certifications, and Section 401 Conditions of
Certification, the following special commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
Protect Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Ri aht of Way Branch
The Nature Conservancy has a preserve, known as the Daughtry Tract, located along
the South River on the north side of SR 1246, adjacent to this project. Additional
coordination with the Nature Conservancy will be completed prior to right of way
acquisition.
Categorical Exclusion
April 2001
Green Sheet
Page 1 of 1
3
Sampson/Cumberland County
SR 1246/SR 2035 (Butler Island Bridge Road)
Bridge No. 100 over South River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1246(1)
State Project No. 8.2281201
T.I.P. No. B-3514
Bridge No. 100 is located on the Sampson/Cumberland County line on SR 1246/
SR 2035 (Butler Island Bridge Road) and crosses the South River at this location.
Bridge No. 100 is included in the North Carolina Department of Transportation Draft
2002-2008 Transportation Improvement Program and is part of the Federal-Aid Briuge
Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial
environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal
"Categorical Exclusion".
1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 100 will be replaced at its existing location with a new . structure
approximately 255 feet (77.7 meters) long with a clear roadway width of 28 feet (8.5
meters). The approaches will be 22 feet (6.6 meters) of pavement with 6-foot (1.8-
meter) shoulders. Traffic will be maintained during construction on an off-site detour
using existing roads.
The estimated cost for the recommended proposed improvement is $969,000. The
current estimated cost of the project, as shown in the Draft NCDOT 2002-2008
Transportation Improvement Program, is $80,000 for right-of-way and $960,000 for
construction.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1246/SR 2035 (Butler Island Bridge Road) crosses over South River at the
Sampson/Cumberland County line approximately 6 miles (9.7 kilometers) southwest of
Roseboro in Sampson County. Development in the immediate area is sparse with a
small cluster of three residences and one small store on the extended north approach.
This small cluster of development will not be impacted by any of the studied
alternatives. There is a large forest cutover south of the bridge. SR 1246/SR 2035 is
classified as a Rural Minor Collector in the Statewide Functional Classification System.
SR 1246/SR 2035 has a current pavement width of 19 feet (5.8 meters) with 10-foot
4
(3.0-meter) grass shoulders in the area of the bridge. The roadway approaches are
tangent and with a "flat" vertical alignment in the proximity of the existing structure. The
immediate approaches are on approximately 10 to 12 feet (3.0 to 3.6 meters) of fill.
Horizontal curves approach the bridge from each direction. The curve to the north of
the bridge will not be affected by any replacement alternative. Sight distance is good
both to the north and to the south.
The current traffic volumes on SR 1246 are 1100 vehicles per day (vpd) and are
projected to be 1900 vpd for the design year 2025. The volumes include an estimated
4 % truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 2 % dual-tired (DT) vehicles. The posted
speed limit is 55 mph (88 kmph) in the vicinity of the bridge.
Bridge No. 100, as shown in Figure 2, has an overall length of 242.0 feet (73.8 meters)
and a clear roadway width of 24.0 feet (7.2 meters). The existing two-lane bridge has a
reinforced concrete deck on 1-beams supported by reinforced concrete caps on timber
piles at various centers. The structure was constructed in 1949. The current posted
weight limit is 18 tons (16.3 metric tons) for single unit vehicles and 23 tons (20.9 metric
tons) for truck-tractor semi-trailer vehicles. The bridge has a sufficiency rating of 4.0
compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure and approaches. Bridge No. 100 has a
bed-to-crown distance of approximately 20 feet (6.0 meters).
No accidents were reported in the vicinity of the bridge from February 1, 1997, to
January 31, 2000.
There are no utilities attached to the bridge. Overhead power and telephone lines cross
the branch immediately upstream (west) and downstream (east) of the bridge. Utility
conflicts should be considered moderate to low.
The Beaver Dam Elementary School is at the intersection of Butler Island Bridge Road
and NC 210 approximately 2.5 miles (4.0 kilometers) southwest of Bridge No. 100.
Because Bridge No. 100 is located on the Sampson/Cumberland County line, no public
school buses cross the existing bridge.
III. ALTERNATIVES
Four build alternatives were studied. Alternate 1 replaces the structure on new location
on the east side of the existing structure. The existing structure will be used to maintain
traffic during construction of the new bridge (See Figure 3). Alternate 2 replaces the
structure at the existing location with a temporary detour on the east side of the existing
5
bridge (See Figure 4). Alternate 3 replaces the structure at the existing location with a
temporary detour on the west side of the existing bridge (See Figure 5). The temporary
structures for the on-site detours for Alternates 2 and 3 will be 110 feet (33.5 meters)
long. Alternate 4 (Recommended) replaces the structure at the existing location. SR
1246/SR 2035 will be closed during construction and traffic will be maintained on an off-
site detour using existing roads (See Figure 6).
The posted speed limit for all the alternatives will be 55 mph (88 kmph) and the
corresponding design speed is 60 mph (100 kmph). The elevation of the new bridge will
be approximately the same elevation of the existing bridge. The design speed for the
east and west on-site detour alternatives (Alternates 2 & 3) will be 40 mph (65 kmph);
therefore, a design exception for the construction period may be required.
The No-Build or "do-nothing" alternate was also considered but this choice would
eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not a desirable alternative due to
the traffic service provided by SR 1246/SR 2035 (Butler Island Bridge Road).
Investigation of the existing structure by the NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates
that rehabilitation of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated
condition. The existing bridge is classified as structurally deficient with a sufficiency
rating of 4.0. (A new bridge has a sufficiency rating of 100.)
IV. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTION
It is anticipated that a design exception for the horizontal alignment will be required for
all of the studied alternatives. As noted in the existing conditions, Section II, Bridge No.
100 is in a tangent with left curves on the south and north approaches. The south
approach curve is 6010' and the north approach curve is 60 15', a design speed of 50
mph (80 kmph). To flatten the approach curves to provide a design speed of 60 mph
(100 kmph) would require the entire project length, approximately 2500 feet (762.2
meters), to be on new location. Most of the new right-of-way would affect
pine/hardwood forest and bottomland/swamp wetlands. The northern approach would
also impact some of the development just to the north of the bridge.
It was not deemed appropriate or practical to study an alternative that would not require
a design exception for the horizontal alignment. The design speed for the existing
alignment of the recommended alternative (Alternate 4) is 50 mph (80 kmph) and may
require a design exception. The existing and projected traffic is low (1100 vpd currently
and 1900 vpd for 2025). No accidents were recorded for the 3-year period from
February 01, 1997, to January 31, 2000. The bridge replacement project will not
6
change the existing northern or southern approach curves.
V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternatives studied, based on current prices, are shown it
the following table:
Alternate 1
With Relocated
Bridge East Alternate 2
With On-site
Detour East Alternate 3
With On-site
Detour West Alternate
With Off-
Detoui
Structure Removal $46,464 $46,464 $46,464 $46,46
Structure $440.440 $464,100 $464,100 $464,1(
Roadwav Approaches $413,185 $128,155 $128,155 $128,1;
Mobilization and Miscellaneous $273,911 $151,281 $151,281 $151,21
Enqineerinq and Continqencies $176,000 $154,000 $154,000 $154,01
Temporary Detour $0 $600,000 $600,000 $0
SUBTOTAL $1,350,000 $1,544,000 $1,544,000 $944,01
Right-of-Way / Const. Ease. / Util. $50,000 $31,250 $33,625 $25,0(
TOTAL $1,400,000 $1,575,250 $1,577,625 $969,0(
The above estimates are based on functional design plans; therefore, 45 % has beer
included for miscellaneous items and contractor mobilization, and 15 % for engineerinc
and contingencies.
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
The recommended alternative is Alternate 4, see Figure 6. The replacement structure
is a new bridge at the existing location, approximately 255 feet (77.7 meters) long with
28-foot (8.4-meter) clear roadway width. The grade of the roadway over the ne'A
structure will be approximately the same as the existing bridge. The approaches to the
7
bridge will have a pavement width of 22 feet (6.6 meters) with 6-foot (1.8-meter)
grassed shoulders. This will provide two 11-foot (3.3-meter) lanes. The design speed
will be 60 mph (100 kmph); however, a design exception may be necessary for the
horizontal alignment. If a design speed exception is required for the horizontal
alignment, the posted speed limit for approach curves to the bridge will be reduced
appropriately. SR 1246 will be closed to traffic during the construction period. The
detour alternates are shown in Figure 7.
The Division Office concurs with the recommended improvements.
VII. TRAFFIC DETOUR
On-site detours east (Alternate 2 - see Figure 4) and west (Alternate 3 - see Figure 5)
of the existing bridge were investigated. The estimated construction cost of the eastern
and western temporary on-site detour is $600,000 each. The feasibility of road closure
with an off-site detour was also investigated. The studied off-site detour routes included
using sections of SR 2036 (Broadwater Bridge Road), NC 242, NC 411, and SR 1253.
The off-site detour alternates are shown in Figure 7. The possible detour routes are
characterized by 18-22 foot (5.4-6.6 meter) two-lane roadways with 6 to 8-foot (1.8 to
2.4-meter) grassed shoulders. The implied speed limit is 55 mph (88 kmph) in lieu of
specified postings for all potential segments of the detour. Bridge No. 369 on SR 1253
has a posted weight limit for single vehicles at 19 tons (17.2 metric tons) and TTST at
27 tons (24.5 metric tons). Bridge No. 46 on NC 242 has a posted weight limit for
single vehicles at 30 tons (27.2 metric tons) and TTST at 33 tons (29.9 metric tons).
Both of these weight restrictions are higher than the weight restriction currently imposed
on the bridge being replaced (Bridge No. 100).
The current traffic volume in the vicinity of the Bridge No. 100 is 1100 vpd. The 2025
traffic volume is projected to be 1900 vpd. A study of travel patterns in the area of the
project indicates that the travel is mainly local in nature. It was estimated that less than
100 vpd would need to make the approximately 12.5-mile (20.1-kilometer) trip from one
side of the bridge to the other. Most of the remaining 1000 vpd is generated by the rural
development in and around the Beaver Dam Community or the NC 210 corridor with
origin or destination to the employment centers in and around Roseboro. The extra
travel for these 1000 vpd created by the Bridge No. 100 closure would range from
approximately 2.6 to 3.7 miles (4.2 to 6.0 kilometers) extra per vehicle-trip. For the 12-
month construction period, the off-site detour would have an estimated road user cost of
$514,000 (at 32.5 cents per vehicle-mile). A benefit cost ratio of 0.86 for either the
eastern or western detour (comparing the on-site detour cost versus the additional road
user cost) indicates justification to provide an off-site detour.
8
Vlll. NATURAL RESOURCES
Methods
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from
number of sources including applicable U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topograph
mapping (Roseboro, NC 7.5 minute quadrangle), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FW;
National Wetlands Inventory mapping (7.5 minute quadrangles), Natural Resource
Conservation Service (formerly the Soils Conservation Service) soils mapping (USD
1984), and recent aerial photography (scale: 1 inch = 100 feet (30.4 kilometer:
furnished by KO & Associates, PC.
The site was visited on July 18, 2000. The study corridor was walked and visual
surveyed for significant features. For purposes of this evaluation, the study corridor we
assumed to be approximately 1320 feet (402.3 meters) in length and 300 feet (91.
meters) in width. Impact calculations are based on right-of-way width, which
approximately 80 feet (24.3 meters); actual impacts will be limited to construction limi.
and are expected to be less than those shown for right-of-way. Special concerr
evaluated in the field include potential habitat for protected species, wetlands, and wat(
quality protection in the South River.
The field work for this investigation was conducted by EcoScience Corporatic
biologists Alexander Smith, Ward Elis, Shay Garriock, and Matt Cusack.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by Nora
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Whe
appropriate, community classifications were modified to better reflect field observation
Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968). Jurisdiction
areas were evaluated using the three-parameter approach (hydrophytic vegetatioi
hydric soils, wetland hydrology) following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE
delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were characterized accordir
to a classification scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979). Habitats used t
terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms, as well as expected population distribution
were determined through field observations, evaluation of available habitat ar
supportive documentation (Martof et al. 1980, Webster et al. 1985, Menhinick 199
Hamel 1992, Palmer and Braswell 1995, Rohde et al. 1994). Water quality informatic
for stream area was derived from available sources (DWQ 1996, DWQ 199E
Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
The most current FWS listing of federal-protected species with ranges which extend ini
Cumberland and Sampson County was obtained prior to initiation of the fie
investigation. In addition, NHP records documenting presence of federal- or state-liste
species were consulted before commencing the field investigation.
9
Proiect Area
The study corridor is located immediately southwest of the Town of Roseboro, in a rural
area of Cumberland and Sampson Counties (Figure 1). The corridor is located along
SR 1246/2035 at South River along the Cumberland/Sampson County line. The study
corridor spans the channel and floodplain of the South River, and has been identified as
a priority area (South River Aquatic Habitat) by the NHP. Land use in the vicinity of the
aridge is primarily undisturbed forest, areas of woodland that have been recently
timbered and residential yards.
Physioaraphy and Soils
The study corridor is underlain by the Cape Fear Geologic formation within the Inner
Coastal Plain physiographic province of North Carolina. Topography is characterized
as gently undulating with wide floodplains and broad, flat interstream divides. The study
corridor is located in, and adjacent to, the floodplain of the South River. The land
surface is mostly level to gently sloping but includes some side slopes along the outer
floodplain boundary. The inner floodplain associated with South River is low and
flooding in low-lying areas appears to be common. Elevations in the study corridor
range from approximately 87 feet (26.5 meters) National Geodetic Vertical Datum
(NGVD) on the interstream flats on the outer edges of the study corridor to
approximately 70 feet (21.3 meters) NGVD in the stream channel (USGS Roseboro
quadrangle).
The dominant soil mapping unit underlying the stream corridor at the existing facility is
Johnston loam (Cumulic Humaquepts). Soils mapped adjacent to South River include
Torhunta soils (Typic Humaquepts) adjacent to the east bank of the South River and
Chewacla loam (Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts) adjacent to the west bank.
The Johnston series is characterized by nearly level, very poorly drained soils that are
loamy or sandy throughout. These soils typically occur in broad floodplains and along
major drainageways (USDA 1984, USDA 1985). The Torhunta series is characterized
by nearly level, poorly drained soils located on low flats and in slight depressions of
uplands (USDA 1984). The Chewacla series is characterized as somewhat poorly
drained and moderately permeable soils, and typically occurs in floodplains and along
creeks and rivers. Within Cumberland and Sampson County, both Johnston and
Torhunta series are considered to be hydric soils while the Chewacla series is
considered to be a non-hydric soil (NRCS 1996a, b).
WATER RESOURCES
Waters Impacted
The study corridor is located within sub-basin 03-06-18 of the Cape Fear River Basin
10
(DWQ 1996). This area is part of USGS accounting unit 03030006 of the Coastal Plair
Region. The structure targeted for replacement spans South River with no direc,
involvement of additional streams or tributaries. The area of the drainage basin for the
South River at the project site is 273 square miles (707 square kilometers). The sectior
of the South River within the project limits has been assigned Stream Index Number 18.
68-12-(0.5) (DWQ 1998).
Stream Characteristics
South River is a well-defined Coastal Plain river with moderate flow over a muddy
unconsolidated substrate bottom. Water clarity was moderate on the day of the sitE
visit, a result of tannin and lignin staining. South River, at the existing bridge, iE
approximately 60 feet (18.3 meters) in width and 2 feet (0.6 meters) from top of banks tc
stream bed. During field investigations, South Creek supported approximately 3 fee
(0.9 meters) of water depth with moderate flow velocities. Channel banks are wel
defined and support shrub and swamp/bottomland forest vegetation. No species o.
submerged aquatic vegetation were identified in the stream channel within the projec
corridor.
High-water lines are approximately 20 feet (6.1 meters) above the existing water
surface and the channel appears to support temporary, high volume, overbank flows
Stream banks and the adjacent floodplain support bottomland/swamp vegetation. Loca
disturbances within the floodplain consist of a power line parallel to and south of the
existing bridge and timber harvesting activities northwest of the bridge.
Best Usage Classifications and Water Quality
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the
existing or contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the
basin. A best usage classification of C has been assigned to South River (DWQ 1998)
The designation C denotes that appropriate uses include aquatic life propagation anc
survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. Secondary recreatior
refers to human body contact with waters on an infrequent or incidental basis. Nc
designated High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), Watei
Supply I (WS-11), or Water Supply II (WS-II) waters occur within 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) o.
the study corridor.
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) (previously known as the Division o.
Environmental Management, Water Quality Section [DEM]) has initiated a whole basir
approach to water quality management for the 17 river basins within the state. Watei
quality for the proposed study corridor is summarized in the Cape Fear River BasinwidE
Water Quality Management Plan (DWQ 1996). No user support information monitorinc
stations are located along South River.
This sub-basin (03-06-18) supports no major point-source dischargers and three minor
dischargers. Total permitted flow for the minor dischargers is 0.1 million gallons per day
11
(MGD) (0.4 million liters per day, (MLD)) (DWQ 1996). Non-point source discharges
include urban runoff, construction, wastewater disposal and solid waste disposal.
Sedimentation and nutrient inputs are major problems associated with non-point source
discharges and often result in fecal coliform, heavy metals, oil from roads and parking
lots and increased nutrient levels in surface waters. The most recent water quality
chemical data were used to determine that this reach of river is Supporting its
designated uses (DWQ 1996).
Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
General Impacts
Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized
through implementation of a stringent erosion control schedule and the use of best
management practices. The contractor will follow contract specifications pertaining to
erosion control measures as outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article 107-13
entitled "Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution" (NCDOT, Specifications for Roads
and Structures). These measures include: the use of dikes, berms, silt basins, and
other containment measures to control runoff; elimination of construction staging areas
in floodplains and adjacent to waterways; re-seeding of herbaceous cover on disturbed
sites; management of chemicals (herbicides, pesticides, de-icing compounds) with
potential negative impacts on water quality and avoidance of direct discharges into
steams by catch basins and roadside vegetation.
The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of pre-project stream flows
in the South River, thereby protecting the integrity of this waterway. Long-term impacts
to adjacent reaches resulting from construction are expected to be negligible. In order
to minimize impacts to water resources, NCDOT Best Management Practices (BMPs)
for the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly enforced during the entire life of the
project.
Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
There is little potential for components of the bridge to be dropped into "waters of the
United States". The temporary fill potential is limited to the 50-foot (15.2-meter) span of
the bridge that is suspended over the water surface and is estimated to be 21.5 cubic
yards (16.4 cubic meters) of bridge material. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for
Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMP-BDR) will be used for the removal of this bridge.
No temporary fill is anticipated.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Plant Communities
Three distinct plant communities were identified within the study corridor:
12
bottom la nd/swamp forest, disturbed/maintained land, and pine/mixed hardwood forest.
Descriptions of plant communities are provided below.
Bottomland/Swamp Forest - Bottomland/swamp forests occur in floodplains, side
slopes, and along stream margins within the project corridor. Canopy species include
laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), bald cypress
(Taxodium distichum), and swamp black gum (Nyssa biflora). The understory is
primarily canopy saplings, along with red maple (Acer rubrum), water ash (Fraxinus
americana), titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), and buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis).
Portions of the forest floor support dense stands of herbs such as netted chain-fern
(Woodwardia areolata), royal fern (Osmunda regalis), false-nettle (Boehmeria
cylindrica), lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans),
common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), laurel leaf greenbrier (Smilax laurifolia),
woodland oats (Chasmanthium laxum), and sedges (Carex spp).
The southwest quadrant of the study corridor formerly supported bottomland/swamp
forest and has recently been subject to a timber clear-cut. Timbered areas presently
support a dense assemblage of early-successional shrub vegetation including Chinese
privet (Ligustrum sinense), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple, and
buttonbush.
Disturbed/Maintained Land - Disturbed/maintained land includes roadside margins,
residential development, and areas regularly maintained for utility lines. Residential lots
(located at the north end of the study corridor) as well as roadside margins are
dominated by areas of bermudagrass (Cynadon dactylon). Invasive weeds are present
in roadside margins and utility right-of-ways. Utility right-of-ways are characterized by a
dense mixture of herbs, grasses, and shrubs. This mixed vegetation assemblage is
regularly maintained to approximately 2 feet (0.6 meters) above the ground. Common
invasive herb species include crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis), plantain (Plantagc
rugelii), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), goldenrods (Solidago spp.), clover
(Lespedeza virginica), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), pokeweed (Phytolacca
americans), vasey-grass (Paspalum urvillei), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), and dandelion (Taraxacum officinale). Common shrub species include
Chinese privet, sweetgum, wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), and multiflora rose (Rosa
multiflora).
Pine/Mixed Hardwood Forest - Pine/mixed hardwood forests occur in uplands and
along floodplain edges within the project corridor. Canopy species include sweetgum,
red maple, loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), willow oak (Quercus phellos), and water oak
(Quercus nigra). The understory consists of canopy saplings, along with pepperbush
(Clethra alnifolia) and wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera). The forest floor supports stands of
vines such as cat greenbrier (Smilax glauca), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), and muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia).
Plant Communities within the Study Corridor
Plant community areas are estimated based on the amount present within projected
right-of-way boundaries depicted on aerial mapping provided. A summary of potential
13
plant community impacts is presented in Table 1 in acres (hectares). Permanent
impacts are considered to be those impacts that occur within cut-and-fill limits.
Temporary impacts are considered to be those that occur between cut-and-fill limits and
the proposed new right-of-way boundary.
From an ecological perspective, total potential impacts of upgrading existing road
facilities for Alternates 2, 3, and 4 are less than the construction of new alignment,
Alternative 1. A majority of the area for the proposed alignment for Alternates 2, 3, and
4 is currently bounded by a relatively wide, cleared-and-maintained right-of-way, utility
lines, and maintained/disturbed land associated with residential development.
Therefore, Alternates 2, 3, and 4 may only claim narrow strips of adjacent natural
communities while Alternate 1 would result in permanent impacts and subsequent loss
to both pine/hardwood and bottomland/swamp plant communities.
The total potential impact (permanent and temporary) for Alternate 1 (3.2 acres (ac) (1.3
hectares [ha]) is slightly more than one and a half times Alternate 2 (2.0 ac [0.8 ha]),
slightly less than one and a half times Alternate 3 (2.4 ac [1.0 ha]), and four times
Alternate 4 (0.8 ac [0.3 ha]). The prime difference being that Alternate 1 permanently
impacts greater amounts of both pine/hardwood and bottomland/swamp plant
communities than either Alternate 2, 3, or 4. Total impacts for Alternates 2 and 3 are
similar, with Alternate 3 having slightly higher temporary impacts than Alternate 2.
Alternate 4 has the least total potential impacts (permanent and temporary) because it
does not have the impacts associated with the temporary detours in Alternate 2 and 3.
Upon completion of roadway improvements, temporary detours will be removed and
natural communities will be restored.
14
N
Q)
co
U
Q)
L_
N
U
f?
C
O
a
Q>
(Q
47
(0
Q
cn
T
C
r ?
E
O
?U
I-
c
c?
a-
m
N
cu
Q?
O
N
U
a
E
'a
r
??R+
m
Q
?U
'rte
C
Q
O
co
N
Q
o p o ° o
c
N
C
fD r
O?- 0)O
I-?

E (yr ACV
O tiM
C O O C. O O O

0)
r_ Cl
Q
T
fD
O
a
O O O
O
E
a?
H
(U O (D ti 0) ti l()
0 p 0)M M O
00 NO
c
M ?
co ?- O O
r -
Q) (0 N? vN
O rM
E O O O O O O

C) m a

Q
?
N T
N
` N to V cD 0)
? D. C) 'cY M r- IcT LO
m E O O O O
Q)
N
Q

(0 ?? ?0) COO
co p N (f) I- N 0) 00
E O O O O
:_.
W
c
N
C ^
00. 0) O
rr
Q) m (V q N
p ti Cl)
E o0 00 60
F a
m
Q
T
N
0O 0) N 0) 0) 00
CL p MM NO ?-V
E 0 0 0 0 r O

0) N 04 It V (0 LO
C*4 -
CO r- V C14 CY)
.
O O '- O O M
c
c
U') cD ao co v ( ? 00
N co O co co r- CO
(moo E o0 0o r o CVo
E
i
a a
Q

0 O rn M

a - C) O
E o0 0o r-p
(D
I-

Z
c
Z. 3
?
E

2 vo
E N?
o
N72 a)
? c
(D ?.-
N
Q
L z
.
N (o (9
C_
a
U a=LL m(nLL 02 -j F-
Wildlife
Terrestrial
During the field visit mammal signs (tracks, scat, remains, etc.) were noted within the
study corridor for gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), white-tail deer (Odocoileus
virginianus), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), and beaver (Castor canadensis); however,
none of these species were observed. Several species not in evidence but also
expected to occur in woodlands and fringe areas are eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus
floridanus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), Virginia opossum (Didelphis
virginianus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), mink (Mustela vison), Norway rat (Rattus
norvegicus), and house mouse (Mus musculus).
Birds observed within or adjacent to the corridor include Carolina wren (Thryothorus
ludovicianus), summer tanager (Piranga rubra), yellow-throated vireo (Vireo flavifrons),
Acadian flycatcher (Empidonax virescens), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), great
crested flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitus), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), red-
eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), downy
woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), northern flicker
(Colaptes auratus), eastern towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), and blue grosbeak
(Guiraca caerulea). Other species, such as American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos),
blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), eastern screech owl
(Otus asio), American robin (Turdus migratorius), and indigo bunting (Passerina
cyanea) were not observed but are expected to occur within the study corridor.
Several terrestrial reptiles and amphibian species were documented within the study
corridor including: Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis), Cope's gray treefrog (Hyla
chrysoscelis), six-lined race-runner (Cnemidophorus sexlineatus), and several toads
(Bufo sp.). Terrestrial reptiles and amphibians not observed but likely occurring within
the study corridor include eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), eastern fence lizard
(Sceloporus undulatus), broadhead skink (Eumeces laticeps), five-lined skink (Eumeces
fasciatus), queen snake (Regina setemvittata), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), eastern
kingsnake (Lampropeltis getulus), eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis),
cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus), and copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix).
Aquatic
Limited surveys resulted in the identification of one aquatic amphibian in the study
corridor, the northern cricket frog (Acris crepitans). Aquatic or semi-aquatic reptiles and
amphibians which may occur within the project corridor include snapping turtle
(Chelydra serpentina), yellowbelly slider (Trachemys scripta), river cooter (Pseudemys
concinna), musk turtle (Kinostemon subrubrum), brown water snake (Nerodia
taxispilota), redbelly water snake (Nerodia erythrogaster), cottonmouth (Agkistrodon
piscivorus), eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), marbled salamander
(Ambystoma opacum), southern dusky salamander (Desmognathus auriculatus), mud
16
salamander (Pseudotriton montanus), green frog (Rana clamitans), southern cricket
frog (Acris gryllus), and pickerel frog (Rana palustris) (Martoff et. al. 1980).
Visual surveys of South River did reveal the presence of molluscan fauna, fish, and
other aquatic life. Bivalve remnants of eastern elliptio (Elliptio complanata) were
collected (identified by Art Bogan, N. C. State Museum of Natural Resources, pers.
comm, July 2000). Detailed sampling was not undertaken in the South River to
determine fishery potential; however, fish species representative of coastal streams
within the county and expected to occur include: dusky shiner (Notropis cummingsae),
pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus), eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrook?),
tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmsted?), swampfish (Chologaster comuta), and
margined madtom (Noturus insignis). Potential game fish which may be present within
the study corridor include redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus) and largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides) (Menhinick 1991, Rohde et al. 1994).
Anticipated impacts to Wildlife
Alternate 1 will result in the permanent loss of 0.2 ac (0.1 ha) of pine/hardwood forest
and 0.9 ac (0.4 ac) of bottomland/swamp forest, potentially displacing terrestrial animal
populations. Due to the limited amount of infringement on natural plant communities,
Alternates 2, 3, and 4 will result in the permanent loss of 0.3 ac (0.1 ha) of
bottomland/swamp forest and no loss of pine/hardwood forest. Alternates 2, 3, and 4
will result in no significant loss of habitat or in the displacement of known terrestrial
animal populations. Construction noise and associated disturbances will have short-
term impacts on avifauna and wildlife movement patterns. Long-term impacts are
expected to be negligible. Potential downstream impacts to aquatic habitat will be
avoided by bridging the system to maintain regular flow and stream integrity. Short-
term impacts associated with turbidity and suspended sediments will affect benthic
populations. Temporary impacts from increased sediment to downstream habitat during
construction will be minimized by the implementation of stringent erosion control
measures.
SPECIAL TOPICS
Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the embankments of South River are subject to jurisdictional
consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as "waters of the United
States" (33 CFR section 328.3). NWI mapping indicates that South River exhibits
characteristics of a palustrine, broad-leaved and needle-leaved, deciduous forest
system that is semipermanently flooded (PF01/2F) (Cowardin et al. 1979). Field
investigations indicate that South River is a bank-to-bank system, and wetlands occur
within the study corridor.
The area of wetland in acres (hectares) within alternative corridors and the area (ac
[ha]) and linear distance (feet [meters]) of stream shaded by proposed bridging are
presented in Table 2.
17
Potential impacts associated with construction activities include bridging of South River
and permanent impacts from shading. No direct stream impacts are expected from
bridge construction as bridging will not result in fill or dredging of any wetlands/waters of
the United States. There is little potential that components of the existing bridge may be
dropped into "waters of the United States" during construction.
Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344)
are defined by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic
vegetation, and evidence of hydrology at or near the surface for a portion (12.5 percent)
of the growing season (DOA 1987). Based on the three-parameter aF proach,
jurisdictional wetlands do occur within the site corridor. Wetland vegetation species are
black gum, bald cypress, sweetgum, and lizard's tail. These plants are growing on
Johnston and Torhunta soils which exhibit values, chromas, and mottles characteristic
of hydric soils. Evidence of wetland hydrology includes surface drainage patterns,
water-stained leaves, water marks, and ground saturation near the surface.
Jurisdictional areas were delineated and have been located with Global Positioning
System (GPS) technology.
There is little potential that components of the existing bridge may be dropped into
"waters of the United Stated" during construction. Therefore, no temporary fill is
expected to result from bridge removal. This project can be classified as Case 3, where
there are no special restrictions other than those outlined in Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters. NCDOT will coordinate with the various
resource agencies during project planning to ensure that all concerns regarding bridge
demolition are resolved.
Permits
This project is being processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines. Nationwide Permit (NWP) #23 (61 FR 65874,
65916; December 13, 1996) has been issued by the COE for CEs due to expected
minimal impact. DWQ has issued a General 401 Water Quality Certification for NWP
#23. However, use of this permit will require written notice to DWQ. In the event that
NWP #23 will not suffice, minor impacts attributed to bridging and associated approach
improvements are expected to qualify under General Bridge Permit 031 issued by the
Wilmington COE District. Notification to the Wilmington COE office is required if this
general permit is utilized.
18
N
UIR
m
Q
E
N
c?
C
O
CL
O
N
C
d ?
Ri C
ca
t6
C
O
0
m
Q
a)
L
O
U)
m
O
O
O
a)
rn
m
J
Q
Z
O Q
?'~ W
U
?0<
00
N cl)
O O
N M
00 0 0 r
?t c
N
co c
00? -
Mr
?M

E N O O
NC

a)
N o0
_. 0o
., .
a
Q
Z
?v
0
CL O O O
E
m
H
?p O (0 M r (D
00
H "T LO O O
?-O 00
M c

a)
( N
c
O
00
N
M .=
O O
ch
N
` E p O O O
;
° a
Q

p
C) t7 Cl)
N v
E ?o
a?

Lr
(V U ^ Mr
O O (D
00
O
C
N C 00 r M
ch
0) m N - O O N
C E O O O O
N
0) d
Q

m
O
rn c°°i
0
M
NI\
E 00
N
H
O 09 ti Ce) 0 0 04
N
F- ? O O O .?
? c
C 000 T N M
f0 00 M O O
N
C E OO OO C
C N
CL
iQ

`?° v o0
O O M O O
a
E O O
N
H
N f0
N
O - C
f0 LL fU _) 0)
0O E L c M L m (Cp
(n
0 CL
mw `?0 Q ?cno
Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not proposed for this project due to the limited nature of
project impacts. However, utilization of BMPs is recommended in an effort to minimize
impacts. Temporary impacts associated with the construction activities could be
mitigated by replanting disturbed areas with native wetland species and removal of
temporary fill material upon project completion. Fill or alteration of streams may require
compensatory mitigation in accordance with 15NCAC2H.0506(h). A final determination
regarding mitigation to waters of the U.S. rests with the COE and DWQ.
Protected Species
Federal Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T), officially
proposed (P) for such listing, or Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance (T[S/A]) are
protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.). The term "Endangered species" is defined as "any species which is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range" and the term
"Threatened species" is defined as "any species which is likely to become an
Endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range" (16 U.S.C. 1532). The term "Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance"
is defined as a species which is not "Endangered" or "Threatened", but "closely
resembles and Endangered or Threatened species" (16 U.S.C. 1532).
The following federal-protected species are listed for Cumberland and Sampson
Counties (February 26, 2001 FWS list):
Common Name Scientific Name Status County
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T (S/A) C/S
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E C/S
Saint Francis' satyr Neonympha mitchellii francisci E C
Small-whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides T C
Pondberry Lindera melissifolia E C/S
Rough-leaved loosestrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia E C
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii E C
American chaffseed Schwa/bea americana E C
* Historic Record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
American Alligator - The American alligator is listed as threatened based on the
similarity in appearance to other federally-listed crocodilians; however, there are no
other crocodilians within North Carolina. American alligators can be found in a variety
of freshwater to estuarine aquatic habitats including swamp forests, marshes, large
20
streams and canals, and ponds and lakes. NHP records indicate that American
alligators have not been documented within 1.0 mile (mi) (1.6 kilometer [km]) of the
study corridor.
T S/A species are not subject to Section 7 consultation and a biological conclusion is
not required. However, this project is not expected to affect the American alligator.
Red-cockaded Woodpecker - This small woodpecker [7 to 8.5 inches long (17.8 to
21.6 centimeters)] has a black head, prominent white cheek patch, and black-and-white
barred back. Males often have red markings (cockades) behind the eye, but the
cockades may be absent or difficult to see (Potter et al. 1980). Primary habitat consists
of mature to over-mature southern pine forests dominated by loblolly (Pinus taeda),
long-leaf (P. palustris), slash (P. elliotii) and pond (P. serotina) pines (Thompson and
Baker 1971). Nest cavities are constructed in the heartwood of living pines, generally
older than 70 years, that have been infected with red-heart disease. Nest cavity trees
tend to occur in clusters, which are referred to as colonies (FWS 1985). The
woodpecker drills holes into the bark around the cavity entrance, resulting in a shiny,
resinous buildup around the entrance that allows for easy detection of active nest trees.
Pine flatwoods or pine-dominated savannas which have been maintained by frequent
natural fires serve as ideal nesting and foraging sites for this woodpecker.
Development of a thick understory may result in abandonment of cavity trees.
Site plant communities include roadside/disturbed land, bottomland/swamp forest
dominated by a mature cypress/gum canopy, and pine/mixed hardwood forest
characterized by a canopy consisting of 50 percent hardwood cover. None of these
communities provide appropriate habitat for red-cockaded woodpecker nesting or
foraging. Suitable nesting habitat does not occur within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the
study corridor, and NHP records do not document the occurrence of red-cockaded
woodpeckers in the vicinity of the study corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: The project corridor contains no suitable habitat
for red-cockaded woodpecker foraging and nesting. There is no nesting habitat
within 1.0 mi (1.6 kilometers) of the project corridor, and NHP records have no
documentation of red-cockaded woodpeckers in the vicinity of the project
corridor. Based on NHP record searches and surveys conducted during field
investigations, this project will not affect red-cockaded woodpecker. NO
EFFECT
Saint Francis' Satyr Butterfly - This butterfly occurs primarily in wet meadows
dominated by sedges and grasses (FWS 1995). NHP and FWS records indicate this
listed subspecies is known to occur at only one locality, an artillery range at Fort Bragg.
No suitable habitat for this species exists within the study corridor.
Site plant communities include roadside/disturbed land, bottomland/swamp forest, and
21
pine/mixed hardwood forest. None of these communities provide appropriate habitat for
the Saint Francis' satyr butterfly.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Saint Francis' satyr butterfly typically occurs in
grassy wet meadows, a habitat not available within the project corridor. This
subspecies is known to occur at only one locality, an artillery range at Fort Bragg.
NHP records indicate no documentation of Saint Francis' satyr within 1.0 mile
(1.6 kilometers) of the project corridor. Based on available information, this
project will not impact Saint Francis' satyr butterfly. NO EFFECT
Small-Whorled Pogonia - The small-whorled pogonia is a terrestrial orchid growing to
about 10 inches (25.4 centimeters) in height. Five or six drooping, pale, dusty-green,
widely-rounded leaves with pointed tips are arranged in a whorl at the apex of the
greenish or purplish, hollow stem. Typically a single, yellowish green, nearly stalkless
flower is produced just above the leaves; a second flower rarely may be present.
Flowers consist of three petals, which may reach lengths of 0.7 inches (1.8
centimeters), surrounded by three narrow sepals up to 1 inch (2.5 centimeters) in
length. Flower production, which occurs from May to July, is followed by the formation
of an erect ellipsoidal capsule 0.7 (1.8 centimeters) to 1.2 (3.1 centimeters) inches in
length (Massey et al. 1983). This species may remain dormant for periods up to 10
years between blooming periods (Newcomb 1977).
Small-whorled pogonia is widespread, occurring from southern Maine to northern
Georgia, but is very local in distribution. In North Carolina, this species is found at
scattered locations in the Mountains, Piedmont, and Sandhills (Amoroso 1999). Small
whorled pogonia is found in open, dry deciduous or mixed pine-deciduous forest, or
along stream banks. Examples of areas providing suitable conditions (open canopy and
shrub layer with a sparse herb layer) where small-whorled pogonia has been found
include old fields, pastures, wind-throw areas, cutover forests, old orchards, and semi-
permanent canopy breaks along roads, streams, lakes, and cliffs (Massey et al. 1983).
In the Mountains and Piedmont, this species is usually found in association with white
pine (Pinus strobus) (Weakley 1993).
Plant communities within the study corridor (bottomland/swamp forest, pine/mixed
hardwood forest, and disturbed/maintained land) offer inappropriate, marginal habitat for
small whorled-pogonia. Proposed impacts will likely be limited to bottomland areas
characterized by a closed canopy cover offering limited sunlight to herbs on the forest
floor and maintained roadside shoulders, neither of which are appropriate habitat for this
species. Stream banks located within a utility line corridor are subject to regular
maintenance, thus reducing habitat potential. Pine/mixed hardwood forest, within the
study corridor, is characterized by a dense shrub ground cover, eliminating appropriate
habitat for this species. No specimens of this species were observed during the site
visit, and NHP records indicate no documentation of this species within 1.0 mile (1.6
kilometers) of the study corridor.
22
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Small-whorled pogonia typically occurs in open,
dry deciduous or mixed pine-deciduous forest, or along stream banks in the
Mountains, Piedmont, and Sandhills. The existing facility is located within the
Coastal Plain, and existing plant communities do no provide appropriate habitat
for this species. The NHP has no documentation of small-whorled pogonia within
1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project corridor. No specimens of this species
were observed during the site visit. Based on available information, this project
will not impact small-whorled pogonia. NO EFFECT
Pondberry - Pondberry is a deciduous shrub with a limited distribution occurring in two
portions of the southeastern United States: the Mississippi Valley and the Coastal Plain
of the Carolinas (FWS 1993). Within the two portions of its range, pondberry is known
to occupy different habitats. While pondberry is known from hardwood depressional
areas with perched water tables in the Mississippi Valley, in the Carolinas, pondberry
occurs along margins of sink holes, ponds, and depressions in pinelands (FWS 1993).
Within North Carolina, potential habitat for pondberry is described as: 1) shallow ponds
with a sandy substrate, especially sites containing the shrub pondspice (Litsea
aestivalis); and 2) Carolina bays containing a combination of pond cypress (Taxodium
ascendens) with loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and red maple (Leonard 1995).
The plant communities occurring within the study corridor (bottomland/swamp forest,
mixed hardwood/pine forest, and disturbed/maintained land) offer no suitable habitat for
pondberry. Favorable habitat such as depressions, ponds or Carolina bays do not
occur within the study corridor, and NHP records do not document the occurrence of
pondberry within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Pondberry typically occurs in sink-hole
depressions, Carolina bays, and ponded depressions. None of these habitats
occurs within the study corridor. The NHP has no documentation of pondberry
within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project corridor. No specimens of this
species were observed during the site visit. Based on available information, this
project will not affect pondberry. NO EFFECT
Rough-leaved Loosestrife - Rough-leaved loosestrife is a rhizomatous, perennial herb
that often reaches the height of 2 feet (0.6 meters). Plants are dormant in winter, with
the first leaves appearing in late March or early April. The triangular leaves typically
occur in whorls of three or four. Leaves are typically sessile, entire, 0.3 - 0.4 inches (0.8
- 1.0 centimeters) wide, broadest at the base, and have three prominent principal veins
(Godfrey and Wooten 1981). These leaf characteristics help differentiate this species
from Loomis' loosestrife (L. loomish), which may occur in the same areas as rough-
leaved loosestrife (Kral 1983). Individuals of rough-leaved loosestrife, especially young
plants, have been observed to have paired, opposite leaves rather than whorls of three
or four; this pattern has also been observed on new growth re-sprouting from the upper
23
leaf axils in individuals that have been browsed or mowed. Five-lobed yellow flowers,
approximately 0.6 inches (1.5 centimeters) across, are produced on a loose terminal
raceme 1 - 4 inches (2.5 - 10.2 centimeters) long (Godfrey and Wooten 1981). Rough-
leaved loosestrife is reported to flower from late May to June (FWS 1994); however,
ESC biologists have observed scattered individuals flowering through mid-July in New
Hanover County. Seeds are formed by August, but the small, rounded capsules do not
dehisce until October. Populations also reproduce asexually from rhizomes, with
rhizomes producing several shoots.
Rough-leaved loosestrife is endemic to Coastal Plain and Sandhill regions of the
Carolinas. Typical habitat for rough-leaved loosestrife consists of wet ecotones
between long-leaf pine savannas and wet, shrubby areas, where lack of canopy
vegetation allows abundant sunlight into the herb layer. This species is fire maintained;
suppression of naturally-occurring fires has contributed to the loss of habitat in our
state. In the absence of fire, rough-leaved loosestrife may persist for several years in
an area with dense shrub encroachment; however, reproduction is reported to be
suppressed under these conditions, leading to eventual local extirpation (FWS 1995).
Kral (1983) indicates that rough-leaved loosestrife is typically found growing in black,
sandy peats or sands with a high organic content. Because rough-leaved loosestrife is
an obligate wetland species (Reed 1988), drainage of habitat also has an adverse effect
on the plant.
The plant communities occurring within the study corridor (bottomland/swamp forest,
upland mixed hardwood/pine forest, and disturbed/maintained land) offer no suitable
habitat for rough-leaved loosestrife. Utility line right-of-ways adjacent to the
bottomland/swamp forest are characterized by a dense growth of low shrubs, invasive
grasses, and herbs, resulting in no habitat for this species. NHP records contain no
documentation of rough-leaved loosestrife within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study
corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Rough-leaved loosestrife typically occurs in wet
ecotones between long-leaf pine savannas and wet, shrubby areas where lack of
canopy vegetation allows abundant sunlight into the herb layer, and along edges
of disturbed habitat and swamp forest communities. The study corridor supports
no habitat suitable for rough-leafed loosestrife. No specimens of this species
were observed during site investigations. The NHP has no documentation of
rough-leafed loosestrife within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project corridor.
Based on available information and on on-site investigations, this project will not
effect rough-leafed loosestrife. NO EFFECT
Michaux's Sumac - Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent, deciduous, rhizomatous
shrub, usually less than 2 feet (0.6 meters) high. The alternate, compound leaves
consist of 9 to 13 hairy, round-based, toothed leaflets borne on a hairy rachis that may
be slightly winged (Radford et al. 1968). Small male and female flowers are produced
24
during June on separate plants; female flowers are produced on terminal, erect clusters
followed by small, hairy, red fruits (drupes) in August and September. Michaux's sumac
tends to grow in disturbed areas where competition is reduced by periodic fire or other
disturbance, and may grow along roadside margins or utility rights-of-way. In the
Piedmont, Michaux's sumac appears to prefer clay soil derived from mafic rocks or
sandy soil derived from granite; in the Sandhills, it prefers loamy swales (Weakley
1993).
The project corridor is located in an area characterized as Coastal Plain, and Michaux's
sumac typically occurs in the Piedmont and Sandhills. The only areas within the project
corridor which may offer suitable lighting conditions for the sumac are road shoulders
and a utility line corridor, both of which are regularly maintained. No specimens of
Michaux's sumac were observed during the site visit. NHP records do not document
the occurrence of Michaux's sumac within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: The study corridor contains regularly-maintained
roadsides and a utility line corridor, both of which are common habitats for
Michaux's sumac. However, the study corridor is located in the Coastal Plair
physiographic province, and this species is typically found in the Sand Hills and
Piedmont. No specimens of Michaux's sumac were observed during the site
visit, and NHP files have no documentation of this species within 1.0 mile (1.E
kilometers) of the project corridor. Based on available information, this project wil
not impact Michaux's sumac. NO EFFECT
American Chaff-Seed - Chaff-seed is a perennial root-parasitic herb that stands 12 -
24 inches (30.5 - 61.0 centimeters) tall. The alternately-leaved plant is erect and
simple, or branched only at the base. The fleshy leaves are yellow-green or dull greer
with red undertones, and become smaller and narrower from the base of the plant to the
top (Kral 1983). Flowers are arranged on a spike-like raceme and bloom from April tc
June. Chaff-seed occurs in grass/sedge assemblages with moist acidic sandy loams of
sandy peat loams. These assemblages typically exist in moist pine flatwoods
savannas, bog borders and open oak woods.
No appropriate habitat for chaff-seed occur within the study corridor. Plant communities
within the study corridor (bottomland/swamp forest, mixed hardwood/pine forest, and
disturbed/maintained land) offer no potential habitat for chaff-seed. NHP records have
no documentation of American chaff-seed within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study
corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: American chaff-seed typically occurs in
grass/sedge assemblages with moist acidic sandy loams or sandy peat loams.
Plant communities within the study corridor are underlain by clayey soils and do
not include wet grass/sedge assemblages; therefore, no habitat for American
chaff-seed occurs within the study corridor. The NHP has no documentation of
25
American chaff-seed within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project corridor.
Based on field surveys and available information, this project will not affect
American chaff-seed. NO EFFECT
Federal Species of Concern - The February 26, 2001 FWS list also includes a
category of species designated as "Federal species of concern" (FSC). A species with
this designation is one that may or may not be listed in the future.
Potential State
Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Status Countv
Bachman's sparrow Aimophile aestivalis no SC C/S
Rafinesque's big-eared bat Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) rafinesquii no SC S'
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus no SC C/S"'
Mimic glass lizard Ophisaurus mimicus no SC S'
Northern pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus no SC C
Carolina gopher frog Rana capito capito no SC S
American sand burrowing mayfly Dolania americana no Sc S
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia mason no T C
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa yes T C
Georgia indigo-bush Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana no E C
Sandhills milkvetch Astragalus michauxii no C/PT C
Venus flytrap Dioneae muscipula no C-SC C/S
Resinous boneset Eupatortum resinosum yes T-SC C
Butternut Juglans cinerea no SC S
White wicky Kalmia cuneata no E-SC/PC C/S
Sandhills bog lily Lilium indollae no C/PT C
Bog spicebush Lindera subconacea no E C
Pondspice Litsee aestivalis no C C/S
Boykin's lobelia Lobelia boykinii no C C
Carolina bogmint Macbridea caroliniana yes Sc S
Loose watermilfoil Mynophyllum lax um yes T C
Savanna cowbane Oxypolis ternata no E C
Carolina grass-of-parnassus Pamassia carolniana no E C
Wavyleaf wild quinine Parthenium radfordii no c C
Conferva pondweed Potamogeton confervoides no c C
Spiked medusa Pteroglossaspis ecristata no E C
Sandhills pyxie-moss Pyxidanthera barbulatal var. brevistyla no E C
Awned meadowbeauty Rhexia anstosa no T C
Carolina goldenrod Solidago pulchra no E C
Spring-flowering goldenrod Solidago vema no E/PT C/S
Pickering's dawnflower Stylisme pickenngii var. pickenngii no E C
Carolina asphodel Tofieldia g/abra no C C
Roughleaf yellow-eyed grass Xyns scabrifolia no C C
A liverwort Cylindrocolea andersonii yes SC S
State Status: E-endangered, T-threatened, C-concem, SC-special concern, PT-partially threatened
26
"the date and/or location of observation is uncertain
"' the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago
The FSC designation provides no federal protection under the ESA for the specie;
listed. However, NHP files have no documentation of FSC species within the stud',
corridor or within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor.
State Protected Species
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state list as Endangered (E)
Threatened (T), Special Concern (SC), Candidate (C), Significantly Rare (SR), o
Proposed (P) (Amoroso 1999, LeGrand and Hall 1999) receive limited protection unde
the North Carolina, Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the Nortl
Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202 et seq.). NHP records indicate tha
no terrestrial or aquatic State-listed species have been documented within 1.0 mi (1.(
kilometers) of the study corridor.
IX. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council of
Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFF
Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of thei
undertakings (federally-funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included in o
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and to afford the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on sucl
undertakings. The project was coordinated with the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) in accordance with the Advisory Council's regulations an(
FHWA procedures.
B. Historic Architecture
A field survey of the area of potential effect (APE) was conducted by Ko and Associate!
on March 10, 2000. All structures within the APE were photographed, and on March 10
2000, Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT staff architectural historian, reviewed the maps an(
photographs. On June 1, 2000, representatives of NCDOT, FHWA and the Stat(
Historic Preservation Office reviewed properties in the project's area of potential effec
27
and concluded there are no properties, including Bridge No. 100, considered eligible for
the National Register. A concurrence form was signed to this effect. A copy of the
concurrence form is included in the Appendix.
C. Archaeology
In their September 5, 2000, letter, the SHPO stated "We have conducted a review of the
project and are aware of no properties of architectural, historic, or archaeological
significance which would be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment
on the project as currently proposed." Given the limited scope of the project, no effects
on archaeological sites are anticipated.
X. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact by replacing a potentially
unsafe bridge.
The project is considered a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or
natural environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulations. No
significant change in land use is expected to result from replacement of the bridge.
The studied route does not contain any bicycle accommodations, nor is it a designated
bicycle route; therefore, no bicycle accommodations have been included as part of this
project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not
expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
Essentially, all four alternatives replace the existing bridge at its current local. Alternate
1 replaces the existing structure on new location just to the east of the existing bridge.
28
Alternates 2, 3, and 4 replace the existing bridge at its current location with identics
permanent right-of-way requirements. The required right-of-way for all four alternative
affects wetlands, bottomland hardwood forest or distributed roadside land. Alternative
2 and 3 would require temporary easements to contain the temporary on-site detours
Alternate 4 is the same as either Alternate 2 or 3 but closes SR 1246/SR 2035 to traffi
during the construction period and utilities an off-site detour. Alternate 4 avoids the
temporary environmental impacts necessary to implement the on-site detours require)
by Alternates 2 or 3. None of the alternatives involves any existing farmland and all fou
alternatives have the same "Farmland Conversion Impact Rating" score of 60. Thl
Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA) determined that no prime farmland
would be affected by any of the four alternatives, thereby, meeting the requirements c
the Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 CFR Part 658). (Note: Alternate 4 was developer
after the request for evaluation by the USDA but Alternate 4 has the same right-of-wa
requirements as either Alternate 2 or 3 but requires no temporary easement for thi
construction of a temporary on-site detour.)
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfom
refuges of National, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
The project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in th
regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required. 40 CFI
Part 51 is not applicable because the proposed project is located in an attainment arez
The replacement of the existing bridge will not increase or decrease traffic volume
because of the project; therefore, the project's impact on noise and air quality will not b
significant. The replacement of the existing bridge will not result in increased nois
levels. The noise levels will increase during the construction period, but will only b
temporary. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffi
noise of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772 and for air quality (199
Clean Air Act Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act) and n
additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment an
Natural Resources, Division of Waste Management revealed no leaking undergroun
storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant advers
environmental effects will result from implementation of the project..
29
XI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
Agency Coordination
Letters requesting comments and environmental input were sent to the following
agencies:
*US Army Corps of Engineers- Wilmington District
*US Fish and Wildlife Service
*US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service
State Clearinghouse
*NC Department of Cultural Resources
NC Department of Public Instruction
*NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NC Wildlife Commission
*NC Division of Water Quality
NC Natural Heritage Program
County Manager, Sampson County
Chairman, Sampson County Commissioners
Superintendent, Sampson County Public Schools
Sampson County Regional Medical Center
Asterisks (*) indicates agencies from which written comments were received. The
comments are included in the appendix of this report.
Public Involvement
Due to the isolated nature of this bridge replacement project, no formal public
involvement program was initiated. Ko & Associates prepared a newsletter that was
sent to property owners in the immediate vicinity. No comments from property owners
were received as a result of the newsletter.
30
REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of Nort
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks an
Recreation, N,C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resource:
Raleigh.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification c
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS -79/31. Fis
and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineatio
Manual. Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Statior
Vicksburg, MS. 100 pp.
Division of Water Qualityw(DWQ). 1998. Classifications and Water Quality Standard
Assigned to the Waters of the Cape Fear River Basin. North Carolin
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1996. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Qualit
Management Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natur,
Resources, Raleigh.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1985. Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plar
U.S. Department of the Interior, Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia. 88 pp.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1993. Recovery Plan for Pondberry (Linder
melissifolia). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, GA. 56 pp.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1994. Agency Draft Rough-leaved Loosestrif
Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 37 pp.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1995. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife an
Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for Neonympha mitche
francisci. Federal Register 60(17): 5264-5267.
Godfrey R.K., J.W. Wooten. 1981. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Southeastern Unite
States: Dicotyledons. The University of Georgia Press, Athens GA.933 pp.
Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature
Conservancy, Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
31
Kral, R. 1983. A Report on Some Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Forest-related
Vascular Plants of the South. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Technical Publication R8J-TP 2. 1305 pp.
LeGrand, H. E., S. P. Hall. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal
Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Raleigh.
Leonard, S. 1995. Monitoring, Management, and Restoration of Pondberry (Lindera
melissaefolia) in North Carolina. Final Report. 12 pp.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, NC. 264 pp.
Massey, J.R., D.K.S. Otte, T.A. Atkinson, and R.D. Whetstone. 1983. An Atlas and
Illustrated Guide to the Threatened and Endangered Vascular Plants of the
Mountains of North Carolina and Virginia. Southeastern Forest Experiment
Station, Asheville, North Carolina. 218 pp.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1996a. Hydric Soils: Cumberland
County. United States Department of Agriculture Technical Guide, Section II-A
2.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1996b. Hydric Soils: Sampson
County. United States Department of Agriculture Technical Guide, Section II-A
2.
Newcomb, L. 1977. Newcomb's Wildflower Guide. Little, Brown, and Company,
Boston, MA. 490 pp.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 412 pp.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 408 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
32
Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Southea
(Region 2). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88(26.2).
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishers of th
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Deleware. The University of North Carolir
Press, Chapel Hill, N.C. 222 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities
North Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division
Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natur
Resources. Raleigh. 325 pp.
Thompson, R.L. and W.W. Baker. 1971. A survey of red-cockaded woodpecke
nesting habitat requirements (pp. 170-186). In R.L. Thompson ed., TF
Ecology and Management of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker. Tall Timbe
Research Station, Tallahassee, FL.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1984. Soil Survey of Cumberland Count
North Carolina. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1985. Soil Survey of Sampson County, Nor
Carolina. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Weakley, A. S. 1993. Orchidaceae (Orchid Family): Isotria Rafinesque (Whorle
Pogonia, Five-leaves, Fiveleaf Orchid). P. 491 in: Guide to the Flora of tt
Carolinas and Virginia, Working Draft of 22 Octoberr 1993.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolina
Virginia, and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, Ni
255 pp.
33

2052
2022 2027 l \ \?
2°
25 20 A

-
Conoor
d
Ch.
\i' \9 $$ \
2027
r 2028 3b•? ?N
Yr ,i, / \? 4
\'A _ \

-
201.
2028
2029 ? /`,y
\ ',.r1 _
\?y ;'f;
1

10 2D30
2053 -•. 2031
Evergreen
Ch.
2031
\?

• .? '
.
2032
\

\? ?
\\
\o
? a a
2030
2033
N
2?4 i? C \Q'
?. U

2041
2041 •

O
. N
r\Cj
i
Q
R
X042
2040 2035
2034
BRIDGE
NO. 100

1002
BIG egrnr 0- Beaverdom Soh.
Co-My Y
6
.,
2041 Beaverdam i 2036
Ch, 4^,01 p ??,""

' 2040 C64
036 \'

WHITE 1
2054
s
1002 2003 2037 2Q38
ND 2055 ??.. ? _ _. --
. ?7 •\"',
POCOSIN x' t
?
BAY 2038
?•?
2044 Peters
Creek
2046 ?` ?:'-?
a Ch.

c t tL A N',(? y:
„
r1 ?[? rglrm» r N».» Y
E?111
• f S A .4 N S Q N'
'
Yn?nnann n?L:; w.mlvi .uur?n.•meu4 ... ?, I:hnl ..T
rgnr.w
? l

eyUiN x° ,.•
l NgrrWn
?
,.. I
u j I?
.r,.?.
? f Iva4
' `\
.I IIIMr.1?'.
l
?
Il
uV +

r^•11.!/ NORTH CAROLINA DBPARTMBNT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVIKON OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVBLOPMBNT AND
ENVIROMBNTAL ANALTM BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 100
SR 1246/SR 2035 OVER SOUTH RIVER
SAMPSON/CUMBERLAND COUNTY
B-3514
VICINITY MAP
2 3
SCALE (MILES) FIGURE I

LOOKING SOUTH
LOOKING NORTH
rs". TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
r PROJECT DEVELOPMENT A
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BI
BRIDGE NO. 100
ON SR 1246 (BUTLER ISLAND BRIDGE
SAMPSON COUNTY
B-3514
FIGURE 2A
v
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTME

o1 TRANSPORTATION
a DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
o; PROJECT DEVELOPMENT A
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BI
BRIDGE NO. 100
ON SR 1246 (BUTLER ISLAND BRIDGE
SAMPSON COUNTY
B-3514
FIGURE 2B

adz
W
z:E
?° z
W Q
W N
OC
N oG
W
© LL

e?

?i
o0Q
x ? n
4
M
O
ti
04
F z
W ?A?
? w

3 3
° ?
LU
o

?
L

Z W
CL
N
W ° ?
CL F-
1 -1
W
-A
-H
-H

ft
w
J '
'
Ch. - ?; Y r 6 \4 QA
2027
? ? J e \1 S 4'L?bb "pp I ?^`` ? \\?
Evergreen ?e
Ch.

y
,
_ 2033 ,
.i -9
1
zone
• 1
ors
. a '?1Y '?N
=a. °'° , BRIDGE
NO. 100

rp2 ??j 910 0w Dam
Cammunlp Beaverdam Soh.

.1136

,?
1 MID Beav' Odom
- - ,,-,. HQ
; O

WHITE ,
?ono

r
ND Ji °? i3 a%32 _
?
T _-
om.` POCOSIN /
SAY i .r„3u w.?
}..\ vnr
acar, .? `??.' ,•?, Rotors r
Crook
Ch.

.?? STUDIED DETOUR ROUTES
BRIDGE NO. 100
SR 1246/SR 2035 OVER SOUTH RIVER
SAMPSON/CUMBERLAND COUNTY
B-3514
VICINITY MAP
2 3
SCALE (MILES) FIGURE?

NORTH CAROLINA DSPARTMNT OR TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF ffiOHIVATS
PROJECT DSVBLOPNSNT AND
ENVIROb18NTAL ANALY818 !BANGS
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
i WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
? WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1 B90
/ IN REPLY REFER TO
February 14, 2001
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. 200100213, 200100214, 200 1 002 1 5, 200100216, 200100227, 200100229,
200100347, 200100348, 200100349, 200100350, 200100351, 200100352, 200100353.
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Reference your letters July 28, 2000, August 15, 2000, October 20, 2000, and
November 15, 2000 regarding our scoping comments on the following proposed bridge
replacement projects:
1. TIP Project B-3698, Bridge No. 15 on NC 50 over Youngs Swamp, Sampson
County, Action ID 200100347. .
2. TIP Project B-3699,13ridge No. 67 on NC 903 over Coharie Creek, Sampson
County, Action ID 200100348.
3. TIP Project B-3514, Bridge No. 100 on SR 1246 (Butler Island Bridge Road)
over South River, Sampson County, Action ID 200100349.
4. TIP Project B-3654, Bridge Nos. 29 and 53 on NC 55 over Mingo Swamp,
Harnett County, Action ID 200100213.
5. TIP Project B-3655, Bridge No. 59 on SR 1111 over Jumping Run Creek,
Harnett County, Action ID 200100214.
6. TIP Project B-3692, Bridge Nos. 62 and 82 on NC 72 over Richland Swamp,
Robeson County, Action ID 200100229.
7. TIP Project B-3693, Bridge No. 211 on SR 1527 over Raft Swamp, Robeson
County, Action ID 200100350.
8. TIP Project B-3507, Bridge Nos. 155 and 157 on SR 1303 over Lumber River,
Robeson County, Action ID 200100351.
9. TIP Project B-3881, Bridge No. 26 on US 117 and NC 133 over CSX
Transportation, New Hanover County, Action ID 200100227.
10. TIP Project B-3896, Bridge No. 24 on NC 20 over CSX Transportation,
Robeson County, Action ID 200100352.
11. TIP Project B-4139, Bridge No.
County, Action ID 200100215.
12. TIP Project B-3875, Bridge No.
County Action ID 200100216.
106 on SR 1780 over Black River, Harnett
78 on SR 1456 over Grassy Creek, Moore
rip Project B-3404, Bridge No. 314 on SR 1127 over South Fork Jones Creek,
Anson County, Action ID 200100353.
Based on the information provided in the referenced letters, it appears that each
proposed bridge replacement project may impact jurisdictional wetlands. Department of
the Army (DA) permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of
1977, as amended, will be required for the discharge of excavated or fill material in waters
of the United States or any adjacent wetlands in conjunction with these projects, including
disposal of construction debris. Specific permit requirements will depend on design of the
projects, extent of fill work within the waters of the United States, including wetlands,
construction methods, and other factors.
Although these projects may qualify as a Categorical Exclusion, to qualify for
nationwide permit authorization under Nationwide Permit #23, the project planning
report should contain sufficient information to document that the proposed activity does
not have more than a minimal individual or cumulative impact on the aquatic
environment. Our experience has shown that replacing bridges with culverts often results
in sufficient adverse impacts to consider the work as having more than minimal impacts
on the aquatic environment. Accordingly, the following items need to be addressed in the
project planning report:
a. The report should contain the amount of permanent and temporary impacts to
waters and wetlands as well as a description of the type of habitat that will be affected.
b. Off-site detours are always preferable to on-site (temporary) detours in wetlands.
If an on-site detour is the recommended action, justification should be provided. On-site
detours, unless constructed on a spanning structure, .can cause permanent wetland impacts
due to sediment consolidation resulting from the on-site detour itself and associated
heavy equipment. Substantial sediment consolidation in wetland systems may in turn
cause. fragmentation of the wetland and impair the ecological and hydrologic functions of
the wetland. Thus, on-site detours constructed in wetlands can result in more than
minimal wetland impacts. These types of wetland impacts will be considered as
permanent wetland impacts. Please note that an onsite detour constructed on a spanning
structure can potentially avoid permanent wetland impacts and should be considered
whenever an on-site detour is the recommended action.
2
For proposed projects and associated on-site detours that cause minimal losses of
wetlands, an approved wetland restoration plan will be required prior to issuance of a DA
nationwide or general permit. For proposed projects and associated on-site detours that
cause significant wetland losses, an individual DA permit and a mitigation proposal for
the unavoidable wetland impacts may be required.
In view of our concerns related to onsite detours constructed in wetlands, recent
field inspections were conducted at each of the proposed project sites, except for TIP
Project B-3875, and a cursory determination was made on the potential for sediment
consolidation due to an onsite detour. Based on these inspections, potential for sediment
consolidation in wetlands exists at several of the proposed projects. Therefore, it is
recommended that geotechnical evaluations be.conducted at each project site to estimate
the magnitude of sediment consolidation that can occur due to an on-site detour and the
results be provided in the project planning report. Based on our field inspections, we.
strongly recommend that geotechnical evaluations be conducted at the following
proposed project sites:
1. TIP Project B-3698, Bridge No. 15 on NC 50 over Youngs Swamp, Sampson
County, Action ID 200100347.
2. TIP Project B-3514, Bridge No. 100 on SR 1246 (Butler Island Bridge Road)
over the South River, Sampson County, Action ID 200100349.
3. TIP Project B-3654, Bridge Nos. 29 and 53 on NC 55 over Mingo Swamp,
Harnett County, Action ID 200100213.
4. TIP Project B-3692, Bridge Nos. 62 and 82 on NC 72 over Richland Swamp,
Robeson County, Action ID 200100229.
5. TIP Project B-3693, Bridge No. 211 on SR 1527 over Raft Swamp, Robeson
County, Action ID 200100350.
6. TIP Project B-3507, Bridge Nos. 155 and 157 on SR 1303 over Lumber River,
Robeson County, Action ID 200100351.
c. Project commitments should include the removal of all temporary fills from
waters and wetlands and "time-of-year" restrictions on in-stream work if recommended
by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission. In addition, if undercutting is necessary for
temporary detours, the undercut material should be stockpiled to be used to restore the
site.
d. All restored areas should be planted with endemic vegetation including trees, if
appropriate.
e. The report should provide an estimate of the linear feet of new impacts to
streams resulting from construction of the project.
3
f. If a bridge is proposed to be replaced with a culvert, NCDOT must demonstrate
that the work will not result in more than minimal impacts on the aquatic environment,
specifically addressing the passage of aquatic life including anadromous fish. In addition,
the report should address the impacts that the culvert would have on recreational
navigation.
g. The report should discuss and recommend bridge demolition methods and shall
include the impacts of bridge demolition and debris removal in addition to the impacts of
constructing the bridge. The report should also incorporate the bridge demolition policy
recommendations pursuant to the NCDOT policy entitled "Bridge Demolition and
Removal in Waters of the United States" dated September 20, 1999.
h. Based on the recent field investigations of the referenced project sites, the'
apparent level of wetland impacts and scope of the referenced projects do not warrant
coordination pursuant-to the integrated NEPA/Section 404-merger agreement.
Should you have any questions, please call Mr. David L. Timpy at the Wilmington
Field Office at 910-251-4634.
Sincerely,

E. David Franklin
NCDOT Team Leader
Regulatory Division
United States Department of the Int rior,
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE G? SFP i
Raleigh Feld Office ?O uil •r „ .
Post Office Box 33726 C,c<?, i
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726 '??. T, :..
September 14, 2000
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Thank you for your July 28, 2000 request for information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) on the potential environmental impacts of proposed bridge replacements
Sampson County, North Carolina. This report provides scoping information and is provided in
accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (16 U.S.C. 661-
667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-
1543). This report also serves as initial scoping comments to federal and state resource agencies
for use in their permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace the following
bridge structures:
1. B-3698 Bridge No. 15 on NC 50 over Young's Swamp;
2. B-3699 Bridge No. 67 on NC 903 over Coharie Creek; and,
3. B-3514 Bridge No. 100 on SR 1246 over South River.
The following recommendations are provided to assist you in your planning process and to
facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we recommend that proposed
highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors, or
previously developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. Areas
exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed and region should be
avoided. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings
and/or occur on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures
that maintain natural water flows and hydraulic regimes without scouring, or impeding fish and
wildlife passage, should be employed. Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced
through wetland areas. Roadway embankments and fill areas should be stabilized by using
appropriate erosion control devices and techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in
sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps of the Roseboro, Dobbersville, and Ingold 7.5
Minute Quadrangles show wetland resources in the specific work areas. However, while the
NWI maps are useful for providing an overview of a given area, they should not be relied upon in
lieu of a detailed wetland delineation by trained personnel using an acceptable wetland
classification methodology. Therefore, in addition to the above guidance, we recommend that
the environmental documentation for this project include the following in sufficient detail to
facilitate a thorough review of the action.
1. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted by
filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory. Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987 Corns o_f
Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps).
2. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made to
identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts. Opportunities to
protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation easement, should be
explored at the outset.
The document presents a number of scenarios for replacing each bridge, ranging from in-place to
relocation, with on-site and off-site detours. The Service recommends that each bridge be
replaced on the existing alignment with an off-site detour.
The enclosed list identifies the federally-listed endangered and threatened species, and Federal
Species of Concern (FSC) that are known to occur in Sampson County. The Service
recommends that habitat requirements for the listed species be compared with the available
habitats at the respective project sites. If suitable habitat is present within the action area of the
project, biological surveys for the listed species should be performed. Environmental
documentation that includes survey methodologies, results, and NCDOT's recommendations
based on those results, should be provided to this office for review and comment.
FSC's are those plant and animal species for which the Service remains concerned, but further
biological research and field study are needed to resolve the conservation status of these taxa.
Although FSC's receive no statutory protection under the ESA, we would encourage the NCDOT
to be alert to their potential presence, and to make every reasonable effort to conserve them if
found. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for information on
species under state protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Tom
McCartney at 919-856-4520, ext. 32.
Sincerely,
4
<:??Garl:Xand B. Pardue
Ecological Services Supervisor
Enclosures
cc:
COE, Wilmington, NC (David Timpy)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessey)
NCDNR, Northside, NC (David Cox)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:09/14/00:919/856-4520 extension 32:\4brdgssc.otl
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS

Mountain catchfly Silene ovata FSC**
White irisette Sisyrinchium dichotomum Endangered
Nonvascular. Plants
Rock gnome lichen Gymnoderma lineare Endangered
SAMPSON COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis FSC
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T(S/A)
Rafinesque's big-eared bat Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) rafcnesquii FSC**
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus FSC*
Mimic glass lizard Ophisaurus mimicus FSC*
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Carolina gopher frog Rana capito capito FSC
Invertebrates
American sand burrowing mayfly Dolania americans FSC
Vascular Plants
Venus flytrap Dionea muscipula. FSC
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
White wicky Kalmia cuneata FSC
Pondberry Lindera melissifolia Endangered
Pondspice Litsea aestivalis FSC
Carolina bogmint Macbridea caroliniana FSC
Spring-flowering goldenrod Solidago verna FSC
Nonvascular Plants
A liverwort Cylindrocolea andersonii FSC*
SCOTLAND COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis FSC
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T(S/A)
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus FSC
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Northern pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus FSC**
Carolina gopher frog Rana capito capito FSC
Vascular Plants
Sandhills milkvetch Astragalus michauxii FSC
Resinous boneset Eupatorium resinosum FSC
White wicky Kalmia cuneata FSC
Sandhills bog lily Lilium iridollae FSC*
Bog spicebush Lindera subcoriacea FSC
January 15, 1999 Page 40 of 49
a
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
RT I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Date Of Land Evaluation Request -ZS-
Name Of Project Federal Agency Involved f
Proposed Land Use / `l- County And State /
IRr/d6,oi ??xemen ir?,vs0Al Co ?.C.
i
PART III (To be completed by-Federal Agency)
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Dir
B. Total Acres To Be Converted I
C. Total Acres In Site
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Maximum
. ^ Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b) Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
Site 1 Site Jr 2
Site '73 A 3. , z r_. 0, Z
5.73 D•Z7 O,Zi
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed D O
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government O O
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area / S
6. Distance To Urban Support Services D /0
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average O b
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland I 1 O I O 1 0 1
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
10. On-Farm Investments Q_
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use 0
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 ?00 (00 (00
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100
Total Site Assepment (From Part Vl above ora local 160 (PO r/p0 ?p0
site assessment/
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260 i
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Site Selected: Date Of Selection I Yes ? No ?
Reason For Selection:
(See In.tructions w, reverseside)
For,-. AD-1005 ( 10
aHr SfATI'
1
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
September 5, 2000
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Develop & Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook
Deputy State Historic reservation Officer
Re: B-3698, Bridge No. 15 on NC 50 Over Young's Swamp, ER 01-7260,
B-3699, Bridge No. 67 on NC 903 over Coharie Creek, ER 01-7261,
B-3514, Bridge No. 100 on SR 1246 (Butler Island Bridge Rd) over South River,
ER 01-7262, Bridge Improvements, Sampson County

Thank you for your memorandum of July 28, 2000, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no properties of architectural,
historic, or archaeological significance which would be affected by the project. Therefore, we
have no comment on the project as currently proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section
106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:kgc
cc: Mary Pope Furr, NC DOT
T. Padgett, NC DOT
ADMINISTRATION
ARCHAEOLOGY
RESTORATION
SURVEY & PI,AN:N1NG
Location
507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 [phone] 733-8653
4619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994619 [phone] 715-2671
4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994613 [phone] 715-4801
4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4618 [phone] 715-4801

Federal Aid #BRZ-1246(1) TIP 413-3514 Country: Sampson/Cumberland
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL
REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 100 on SR 1246 over South River
On June 1, 2000, representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
t Nl orth Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Reviewed the subject project at
O scoping meeting
photograph review session/consultation
? other
All parties present agreed
?F] - there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
?1/ there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
EZ?? there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the hi torical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as 1 dWe, 100 3 Pro I' are considered not eligible for the National
egister and no further evaluatio of th m is necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties located within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
LODI 1?? C9 1.6b
Representative, NC OT Date
C/
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
O
Rep ative, SHPO Date
.4
State Historic Preservation Officer Z ?i ! ! Date
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
August 25, 2000
'JAMcS 6.- HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
'BILL. HOLMAN
SECRETARY

MEMORANDUM
TO: Drew Joyner, Project Engineer
DOT
FROM: Stephen Hall S I?
SUBJECT: Bridge Replacement Projects, Sampson County
REFERENCE: B-3514, B-3699
B-3514
The Nature Conservancy has a preserve, known as the Daughtry Tract, located along the
South River on the north side of SR 1246. This property may adjoin the DOT right-of-
way at the proposed bridge crossing and may therefore be affected by the project. We
request that TNC be consulted about possible impacts. Please contact Linda Gintoli at:
TNC-SE Coastal Plain Office
Building 4 Unit E
2725 Old Wrightsboro Rd.
Wilmington, NC 28405
910-762-6277 (w)
I B-3699
The Natural Heritage Program database contains records for the following rare species
of aquatic animals from the reach of Great Coharne Creek in the vicinity of the proposed
bridge replacement project:
• Eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata), currently state listed as Special Concern
and proposed for state listing as Threatened
• Pod lance (Elliptio folliculata), state listed as Special Concern
• Eastern creekshell (Villosa delumbis), considered significantly rare in North
Carolina
• Broadtail madtom (Noturus n. sp. 1), state listed as Special Concern
NO _1VW
1615 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGM, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1615
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10y POST-CONSUMER PAPER

Drew Joyner, Project Engineer
Page 2
August 25, 2000
Santee chub - Coastal Plain population (Cyprinella zanema), state listed as Special Concern
In order to minimize impacts to these species, we recommend that all best management practices for
the control of erosion and sedimentation be strictly followed. All concrete used in the project should
be fully cured before being allowed to come into contact with the water.
/sph
NO/
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATIOlk
mr,s S. HUNT
0IRNOR
?,EC?/?F
MEMORANDUM: Septembe 19, 2000
r
TO: Melba McGee -V Sip P;v
FROM: David Harrison ?/ ?,; cT W q?'}pr
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacement Proj 44 692 and B-
3693 (Robeson County); and B-3514, B-3698 and B-3 ampson County)
If additional land is needed beyond the existing right-of-way, the
environmental assessment should include information on adverse impacts to
Prime or Statewide Important Farmland.
The definition of Prime or Statewide Important Farmland is based on the
soil series and not on its current land use. Areas that are developed or are within .
municipal boundaries are exempt from consideration as Prime or Important
Farmland.
For additional information, contact the soils specialists with the Natural
Resources Conservation Service, USDA, Raleigh, NC at [phone].
cc: William D. Gilmore
a-
1614 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1 614
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
Joy
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
August 8, 2000 SEA 7 20h?
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager, '0 H,Gh
NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis 02- CtN V -0 F?k
Through: ohn Dorsey, NC Division of Water Quality
From: John Hennes ?"7/
Subject: Scoping comments on proposed Sampson County Bridge Replacement Projects:
B-3698, Bridge No. 15 on NC 50 over Young's Swamp,
B-3699, Bridge No. 67 on NC 903 over Great Coharie Creek, and
B-3514, Bridge No. 100 on SR 1246 (Butler Island Bridge Road) over South
River.
NCDENR

This memo is in reference to your correspondence dated 28 July 2000 (received August 4, 2000), in which
you requested scoping comments for the referenced bridge projects within the Cape Fear River Basin.
Preliminary analysis of the project reveals that Bridge No. 15 will span Young's Swamp. The DWQ index
number for the stream is 18-74-19-1. Bridge No. 67 traverses the Great Coharie Creek; the DWQ stream
index number is 18-68-1. Bridge No. 100 crosses the South River; the DWQ stream index number is 18-
68-12-(0.5). All of the streams are classified as C Swamp.
The Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider the following environmental issues for the
proposed project:
A. In planning documents and preliminary designs, NCDOT should consider the possibility that buffer
rules could be implemented in the future within the Cape Fear River Basin.
B. There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required,
it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental
documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted
that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance
of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
C. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road
closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ
requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
D. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
.Ir
`tY
1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
08/10/00
Page 2
E. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by
DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to streams in excess of 150 linear feet.
F. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will
be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
G. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. However, if the new structure is to be a culvert, it
should be countersunk, by a minimum of one foot, to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic
organisms passage through the crossing. Design and placement of culverts and other structures
including temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may result in
disequilibrium of wetlands or stream beds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream of the
above structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium shall be
maintained if requested in writing by DWQ. Additionally, when roadways, causeways or other fill
projects are constructed across FEMA-designated floodways or wetlands, openings such as culverts
or bridges must be provided to maintain the natural hydrology of the system as well as prevent
constriction of the floodway that may result in destabilization of streams or wetlands.
H. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
1. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6)), mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that
mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506
'(h)(3)), the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
J. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
K. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for storm water management. More specifically, storm water should not be permitted to
discharge directly into the creek. Instead, storm water should be designed to drain to a properly
designed storm water detention facility/apparatus.
L. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool,
their inherent inaccuracies require that qualifiod personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior
to permit approval.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met
and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information,
please- contact John Hennessy at [phone].
Pc: ' Corps of Engineers
394MUSFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
File Copy
Central Files