19950298 Ver 1_Complete File_20150911

f-'- V
w?r?A?os cRc
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA r,? WATER uAU?r
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C 27611-5201 SECRETARY
September 8, 1995
Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Mr. G. Wayne Wright
Dear Sir:
Subject: Cumberland County - Replacement of Bridge No. 37 on US 13 over the
South River; State Project No. 8.1442301; T.I.P. No. B-2819
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning report
for the subject project. The project is being processed by the Federal
Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR
771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an Individual Permit
but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR
330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November 22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers.
The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will
be followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2745 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE
document to the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, for their review.

September 8, 1995
Page 2
If you have any questions, please call Cyndi Bell at [phone]
Extension 306.
Since eH. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/tp
Attachment
cc: Matt Flint, COE, Wilmington Field Office
-Eric Galamb, DEHNR, DEM
John Parker, DEHNR, DCM/Permit Coordinator
Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development Branch
Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design
A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics
John L. Smith, Jr., P. E., Structure Design
Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design
W. F. Rosser, P. E., Division 6 Engineer
Stacy Baldwin, Planning & Environmental
It
US 13
Bridge No. 37 Over South River
Cumberland County
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-13(3)
State Project 8.1442301
T.I.P. No. B-2819
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
9 _ ?U
DA H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
0 a39S ,& --- - -)'? DATE Fog Nicholas L. Graf, PE
Division Administrator, FHWA
T
US 13
Bridge No. 37 Over South River
Cumberland County
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-13(3)
State Project 8.1442301
T.I.P. No. B-2819
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
July 1995
Documentation Prepared By:
MA Engineering Consultants, Inc.
F-1- 7-zl - 91?
Shihchen (David) Fuh, Ph.D, PE
Project Manager
for North Carolina Department of Transportation
.A. Bissett, Jr., PE, Unit H
Consultant Engineering Unit
Aa&-4 LL A a
Stacy Y. B d n
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
H CAROB ?'••.
EESS?n'.: q
SE AL
19732
s ?? ;.GI NEB.; ?' Z.
US 13
Bridge No. 37 Over South River
Cumberland County
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-13(3)
State Project 8.1442301
T.I.P. No. B-2819
I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
The temporary detour shall be removed and any land impacted by construction of the temporary
detour shall be restored to its natural conditions.
All standard procedures and measures, including Best Management Practices, will be implemented
to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
US 13
Bridge No. 37 Over South River
Cumberland County
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-13(3)
State Project 8.1442301
T.I.P. No. B-2819
Bridge No. 37 is included in the Federal-Aid Bridge 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 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
For the Summary of Environmental Commitments, see page i.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 37 will be replaced at the existing location as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure 2. The
recommended replacement structure consists of a bridge 44 meters (144 feet) long and 12 meters (40
feet wide). This structure will provide two 3.6-meter (12-foot) travel lanes with 2.4-meter (8-foot)
shoulders on each side.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing grade at this
location.
The existing roadway will be widened to a 7.2-meter (24-foot) pavement width, to provide two 3.6-
meter 12-foot) travel lanes, and 2.4-meter (8-foot) shoulders, of which 1.2 meters (4 feet) will be
paved, on each side throughout the project limits.
A temporary on-site detour will be used to maintain traffic during the construction period.
Estimated cost, based on current prices, is $1,019,500. The estimated cost of the project, as shown
in the 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program, is $498,000 ($475,000-construction;
$23,000-right-of-way).
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located on the county line between Cumberland and Sampson County, approximately
21 kilometers (13 miles) east of Fayetteville, North Carolina (see Figure 1). The area is rural
woodlands in nature.
US 13 is classified as a rural minor arterial in the Statewide Functional Classification System and is
a Federal-Aid Highway. This route is not a designated bicycle route.
In the vicinity of the bridge, US 13 has a 7.2-meter (24-foot) pavement width with 1.8-meter (6-foot)
shoulders (see Figures 3 and 4). The roadway grade is relatively flat through the project area. The
existing bridge is located on tangent which extends approximately 760 meters (2500 feet) east and
250 meters (800 feet) west from the structure. The roadway is situated approximately 6.7 meters (22
feet) above the river bed.
The current traffic volume of 3500 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to 9100 VPD by
the year 2018. The projected volume includes 1% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 3% dual-
tired vehicles (DT). The posted speed limit is 90 kilometers per hour (55 miles per hour) in the
project area.
Bridge No. 37 is a three-span structure that consists of a reinforced concrete deck on steel I-beams.
The substructure consists of reinforced concrete caps on timber piles. The existing bridge (see Figure
3) was constructed in 1954.
The overall length of the structure is 23.2 meters (76 feet). The clear roadway width is 8.4 meters
(28.0 feet). The posted weight limit on this bridge is 23 metric tons (26 tons) for single vehicles and
28 metric tons (31 tons) for TTST's.
Bridge No. 37 has a sufficiency rating of 21.7, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure. The
existing bridge is considered structurally deficient.
There are no utilities attached to the existing structure. However, overhead power lines parallel the
existing bridge on the south side of the roadway. The overhead lines cross the roadway once in the
project area. Utility impacts are anticipated to be low.
No accidents have been reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 37 during the period from April 1991
to March 1994.
There is no school bus traffic crossing this bridge.
2
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 37 were studied. Each alternative consists of a bridge 44
meters (144 feet) long and 12 meters (40 feet) wide. Typical sections of the approach roadway and
structure are included as Figures 4 and 5.
The alternatives studied are shown on Figure 2 and are as follows:
Alternative 1 (Recommended) - involves replacement of the structure along the existing roadway
alignment. Improvements to the approach roadways will be required for approximately 60 meters
(200 feet) in each direction from the bridge. A temporary on-site detour will be provided during the
construction period north (upstream) of the existing structure. The temporary detour will consist of
a bridge of 28 meters (92 feet) long and 7.2 meters (24 feet) wide, located about 12 meters (40 feet)
north of the existing structure. Guardrail along the east approach of the detour should be tied into
the guardrail of the existing bridge east of the project site. New guardrail along the east approach
of the'new bridge should be tied into the existing bridge structure east of the project site. The design
speed for this alternative is 100 kilometers per hour (60 miles per hour). Alternative 1 is
recommended because it maintains the existing horizontal alignment, which is superior to the
proposed alignment for Alternative 2. Additionally, Alternative 1 has less impact on the wetland
environment due to the additional roadway approach work for Alternative 2.
Alternative 2 - involves replacement of the bridge at a new location immediately north of the existing
structure. Improvements to the alignment on the bridge approaches include approximately 135
meters (450 feet) to the east and 135 meters (450 feet) to the west. The design speed of this
alternative is 100 kilometers per hour (60 miles per hour). The existing structure will serve as an on-
site detour during the construction period. This alternative is not recommended because of the
reverse horizontal curves that will be required to tie into the existing roadway at each end of the
project.
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not acceptable
due to the traffic service provided by US 13.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation Division 6 concurs that traffic be maintained on-
site instead of closing the road during construction because of the traffic volumes using US 13 and
the excessive length of additional travel that will be required with an off-site detour.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
V. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the two alternatives are as follows:
(Recommended) Alternative 2
Alternative 1
Structure $ 450,000 $ 450,000
Roadway Approaches 64,000 262,000
Detour Structure and Approaches 316,000 0
Structural Removal 28,000 28,000
Engineering and Contingencies 142,000 110,000
Right-of-Way/Construction Easements/Utilities 19 500 21,000
Total $ 1,019,500 $ 871,000
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 37 will be replaced at its existing location, as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure 2, with a
new structure having a length of approximately 44 meters (144 feet). Improvements to the existing
approaches will be necessary for a distance of about 60 meters (200 feet) in each direction from the
bridge. The Division Engineer concurs with this recommended alternative.
A 7.2-meter (24-foot) pavement width with 2.4-meter (8-foot) shoulders, of which 1.2 meters (4 feet)
will be paved, on each side will be provided on the approaches (see Figure 4). A 12-meter (40-foot)
clear width is recommended on the replacement structure in accordance with the current North
Carolina Department of Transportation Bridge Policy. US 13 is classified as a rural minor arterial;
therefore, criteria for a rural minor arterial was used for the bridge replacement. This will provide
a 7.2-meter (24-foot) travelway with 2.4-meter (8-foot) shoulders across the structure. The. design
speed is 100 kilometers per hour (60 miles per hour).
During the construction period, maintenance of traffic on-site with a temporary detour is necessary.
Otherwise, traffic will have to be detoured along existing secondary roads. This detour route is
considered unacceptable due to traffic volumes using US 13 and the excessive length of additional
travel required.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, the new structure is recommended to have a length of
approximately 44 meters (144 feet). The elevation of the new structure will be approximately the
same as the existing bridge so that there will be no increase to -the existing 100-year floodplain
elevation. The length and height of the new structure may be increased or decreased as necessary to
accommodate peak flows as determined by further hydrologic studies.
4
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
A biologist visited the project site on October 16, 1994 to verify documented information and gather
field data for a thorough assessment of potential impacts that could be incurred by a proposed bridge
replacement project.
The investigation examined the vegetation surrounding the highway bridge in order to: 1) search for
State and federally protected plants and animal species; 2) identify unique or prime-quality
communities; 3) describe the current vegetation and wildlife habitats; 4) identify wetlands; and 5)
provide information to assess (and minimize adverse) environmental effects of the proposed bridge
replacement.
Biotic Resources
Plant Communities
Three distinct plant community types occur within the immediate area of the proposed project.
Specific communities exhibited slight variation dependent upon location and physical characteristics
of the site (soils, topography, human uses, etc.). Communities are described below.
Floodplain Hardwood Forest:
The Floodplain Hardwood Forest (Cypress-Gum Swamp, blackwater subtype) is on level areas
adjacent to US 13 and is a composed primarily of hardwoods. Much of this area is standing water.
The canopy adjacent to the South River is composed of bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), with
numerous cypress knees, and tupelo gum (Nyssa aquatica). Other canopy species include sweetgum
(Liquidambar styracij%a), red maple (Acer rubrum), water oak (Quercus nigra), and eastern
cottonwood (Populus deltoides). Sub-canopy trees include the canopy species plus American holly
(Ilex opaca). The shrub/sapling layer is composed of sweetgum, American holly, and blueberry
(Vaccinium spp.). The vine/herb/grass layer is sparse and composed of grape (Vitis spp.) and
greenbrier (Smilax spp.). Parrot-feather (Myriophyllum brasiliense) was common along the banks
of the river.
Upland Mixed Forest:
This community is found on the upland slopes east of the existing structure.The canopy is dominated
by sweetgum and contains black oak (Quercus velutina), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and longleaf
pine (Pinus palustris). The subcanopy includes the canopy species plus yellow-poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), black oak, and water oak (Quercus nigra). The
shrub/sampling layer includes loblolly pine, American holly, sweetgum, longleaf pine, and sourwood.
The herb/vine/grass layer is sparse and composed of greenbrier and grape.
5
Urban/Disturbed:
This community classification includes disturbed bridge and roadside margins, and a powerline right-
of-way in the vicinity of the project. This area is characterized primarily by invasive vines, grasses
and herbs including: Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans), greenbrier, ragweed (Ambrosia spp.), goldenrod (Solidago spp.), horseweed (Conyza
canadensis), aster (Aster spp.), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), trumpet creeper, Carolina geranium
(Geranium carolinianm), and fescue grass (Festuca spp.). A sparse shrub/sapling layer includes
sourwood and privet (Ligustrum sinense).
Wildlife (General)
Terrestrial:
The project area consists of primarily roadside and bridge, powerline right-of-way, urban/disturbed,
and forested areas. The forested areas provide cover and protection for many indigenous wildlife
species nearby the project area. The forested areas adjacent to the South River and associated
ecotones serve as valuable habitat. The forest bordering the South River has all the necessary
components (food, water, protective cover) for mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians.
Sighting or evidence (tracks, scat, burrows, nests, etc.) were noted for the following species of
mammal, the Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana). Mammals likely to inhabit the area include
eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus) and grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis).
The observed bird species are typical of rural setting where a patchwork of habitat types are available.
Species encountered nearby the South River include the common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos).
Turkey vultures (Cathartes aura) were observed soaring over US 13 and the South River.
Reptiles and amphibians typical of these communities include the eastern garter snake (Thamnophis
sirtalis), Carolina anole (Aeolis carolinensis), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), and Fowler's
Toad (Bufo woodhousei).
Aquatic:
The South River supports aquatic invertebrates and several species of fish for recreational fishing.
Game species present are redfin pickerel (Esox americanus), redhorse sucker (Moxostoma spp.), and
sunfish (Lepomis spp. ).
The river and adjacent banks also provide suitable benthic and riparian habitat for amphibians and
aquatic reptiles such as the eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), southern dusky salamander
(Desmognathus auriculatus), frogs (Rana spp.), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), corn snake
(Elaphe guttata), brown water snake (Nerodia taxispilota), and redbelly water snake (Nerodia
erythrogaster).
6
Physical Resources
Soil
Cumberland and Sampson Counties are located within the Middle Coastal Plain and has gently
undulating, plateau-like, seaward sloping uplands and gentle to steep valley slopes. Elevations in the
immediate project area range from 33.5 meters (110 feet) along the river bottom to 36.6 meters (120
feet) along the roadside.
The parent materials of the soils of Cumberland and Sampson Counties are unconsolidated rock
material, sand and silt, and clay that make up the sediments of the Middle Coastal Plain. Local
changes in subsurface geology are common, and large, homogeneous masses of a single rock type
are rare.
Soils in the project vicinity are Johnston loam, Blaney loamy sand, and Candor sand. Blaney loamy
sand is a well drained soil found on the side slopes and narrow ridges of uplands. Candor sand is an
excessively drained soil found on broad areas and rounded side slopes of uplands. Johnston loam is
a very poorly drained soil found on floodplains. Blaney loamy sand and Candor sand soils are not
hydric soils. Johnston loam soils have map units that are hydric soils or have hydric soils as a major
component. Johns sandy loam soils have map units with inclusions of hydric soils or wet spots.
Water
Bridge No. 37 crosses the South River approximately 45 kilometers (28 miles) downstream from its
origin near Angier, North Carolina. The South River drains south into the Black River. The Black
River and subsequent receptor systems are part of the Cape Fear River Basin.
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 (NCDNRCD 1993).
The South River is Class C Sw, indicating waters for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture, and a supplemental classification for swamp waters;
waters which have low velocities and other natural characteristics which are different from adjacent
streams.
No High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS I or WS II Waters
occur within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of the project site. Mr. Keith Ashley (N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission) indicated that anadromous whiteshad (Alosa sapidissima) and striped bass (Moron
saxatilis) would reach the Black River south of the proposed project. He indicated that a construction
moratorium will not be necessary for the project.
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEW National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) report one discharger (Red Springs WWTP) within 6.4 kilometers (4
miles) upstream of the proposed crossing.
7
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long term trends in water
quality at fixed monitoring sites by the sampling for benthic macroinvertebrates. Certain organisms
are sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality. Good water quality is associated with high taxa
richness (the number of different types of organisms) and the presence of many intolerant species.
Water quality degradation gradually eliminates the more sensitive species and leads to a community
structure quite different from that in an unstressed waterbody.
The South River was sampled (October 1989) by BMAN at the project crossing and given a
bioclassification rating of Fair.
Table 1 describes the stream characteristics of South River observed in the vicinity of the proposed
bridge replacement project.
TABLE 1
Stream Characteristics and Ecolosical Classifications
Characteristic Description
Substrate Muck
Channel Flow Slow
Channel Width 12.2 meters (40 feet)
Water Depth 0.6 meters (2 feet) to 1.2 meters (4 feet)
Water Color Black
Water Odor None
Aquatic Vegetation Parrot-feather
Adjacent Vegetation Bald cypress, cypress knees, type 10 gum, sweetgum,
red maple, water oak, eastern cottonwood
Wetlands Palustrine Forested
Jurisdictional Topics
Wetlands
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States" as defined
in Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 328.3, in accordance with provisions of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters and wetlands will be impacted by
project construction. Approximately 0.40 hectares (0.99 acres) of Palustrine forested deciduous
wetlands (see Cowardin et al. 1979) will be impacted (filled) by the construction of the recommended
alternative. Wetlands are found in low-lying areas adjacent to the bridge. Standing water was
observed near the roadway embankment along the north side of the approach roadway.
Wetland communities were identified using the criteria specified in the 1987 "US Army Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual". For an area to be considered a "wetland", the following
three specifications must be met: 1) presence of hydric soils (low soil chroma values); 2) presence
V
of hydrophytic vegetation; and 3) evidence of hydrology at or near the soil surface for a portion (5
percent or greater duration) of the growing season.
Protected Species
Federally Protected Species:
Species with federal classifications of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) are protected under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (1978, 1979, 1982, and 1988 Amendments).
Candidate species do not receive protection under the Act, but are mentioned due to potential
vulnerability. Table 2 lists the federally protected species for Cumberland and Sampson Counties
as of March 28, 1995.
TABLE 2
Federallv Protected Species for Cumberland and Sampson Counties
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E
Mitchell Satyr butterfly Neonympha mitchelli fiancisci E
Pondberry Lindera melissifolia E
Rough-leaved loosestrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia E
American chaffseed Schu albea americana E
Brief descriptions of each species' characteristics, habitat requirements, and relationship to the
proposed project are discussed below.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Status: E
Family: Picidae
Listed: 10/13/70
This federally Endangered woodpecker is found in scattered locations throughout the southeast. The
bird measures 18 to 20 centimeters long with a wing span ranging from 35 to 38 centimeters. The
male has a small red spot on each side of the head. Both males and females show a black cap and
stripe on the side of the neck. The throat is also black while the cheeks and under parts are white.
Black and white horizontal stripes are visible on the back. Nesting habitat consists of open pine
stands (minimum age 60 years) or mixed pinelhardwood stands, (50 percent or more pine). Longleaf
pine (Pinus palustris) is most commonly used, but other species of southern pine are also acceptable.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat exists along the bridge replacement alternative. Also, a review of North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the subject project study area.
It can be concluded that project construction will have no impact on the Red-cockaded woodpecker.
9
k
Mitchell Satyr butterfly (Neonympha mitchelli francisci)
Status: E
Family: Nymphalidae
Listed: 4/18/94
This federally Endangered butterfly is a fairly small, dark brown butterfly. Mitchell Satyr butterfly
has conspicuous "eyespots" on the lower surfaces of the wings, and these eyespots are a dark maroon
brown in the center, reflecting a silver cast in certain light. Mitchell Satyr butterfly is known to exist
only from a single population on the Fort Bragg Military Base. Mitchell Satyr butterfly inhabits
shallow wetland areas maintained in early successional stages by natural disturbances.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat exists along the bridge replacement alternative. Also, a review of North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the subject project study area.
It can be concluded that project construction will have no impact on this species.
Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia)
Status: E
Family: Lauraceae
Listed: 7/31/86
Pondberry is a deciduous shrub grows to approximately 2 meters (6 feet) tall, and spreads
vegetatively by stolons. Pale yellow flowers appear in the spring before the leaves. The bright red
oval-shaped fruits mature in the fall. Pondberry is associated with wetland habitats such as
bottomland and hardwoods in the interior areas, and the margins of sinks, ponds, and other
depressions in the coastal most sites. The plants generally grow in shaded areas but may also be
found in full sun.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The forested areas along the project offers suitable habitat for this species. Plant by plant surveys
along these areas were conducted on October 16, 1994. No plants were observed. Also, a review
of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the subject
project study area. It can be concluded that project construction will have no impact on this species.
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia)
Status: E
Family: Primulaceae
Listed: 6/12/87
Rough-leaved loosestrife is a perennial herb that grows slender stems from a rhizome and reaches
heights of 3 to 6 decimeters. Whorls of 3 to 4 leaves encircle the stem at intervals beneath the showy
10

Yellow flowers. Flowering occurs from mid-May through June, with fruits present from July through
October. Habitat occurs in the ecotones or edges between longleaf pine uplands and pond pine
pocosins (areas of dense shrub and vine growth) usually on a wet, peaty, poorly drained soil, on moist
to seasonally saturated sands, and on shallow organic soils overlaying sand.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: - NO EFFECT
The disturbed areas along the project offers suitable habitat for this species. Plant by plant surveys
along the disturbed areas were conducted on October 16, 1994. No plants or fruits of this species
were observed. Also, a review of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records
of this species in the subject project study area. It can be concluded that construction of this project
will not impact this species.
American chaffseed (Sclnvalbea americana)
Status: E
Family: Scrophulariaceae
Listed: 10/29/92
American chaffseed is a finely pubescent (to tomentose, unbranched) perennial herb reaching 3-8
decimeters tall. The leaves are alternate, sessile, entire, elliptical-lanceolate (to elliptic-oval) 2-5
centimeters long and approximately 1 centimeters wide. Flowering occurs in spring and fruits in early
summer. Habitat is moist to dry sandy pinelands and oaklands; especially in seasonally wet pine
savannas and pine woodlands.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The upland mixed forest along the project offers suitable habitat for this species. Plant by plant
surveys along the forested woodlands were conducted on October 16, 1994. No plants were
observed. Also, a review of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of
this species in the subject project study area. It can be concluded that construction of this project will
not impact this species.
Federal Candidate Species:
There are twenty-eight (28) C2, and one C 1 (Cylindrocolea andersoni), federal candidate species
listed for Cumberland and Sampson Counties. The North Carolina status of these species is listed
in Table 3.
11

TABLE 3
Federal Candidate Species for Cumberland and Sampson Counties
Common Name Scientific Name Suitable NC
Habitat Status
Bachman's sparrow Aintophila aestivalis Yes SC
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia mason Yes T
Carolina crawfish frog Rana areolata capito Yes Sc
American sandburrowing mayfly Dolania witericana Yes SR
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria dance Yes SR
Georgia leadplant Amorpha georgiana georgiana Yes E
Sandhills milkvetch Astragalus michauxii Yes C
A liverwort Cylindrocolea andersoni Yes C
Pondspice Litsea aestivalis No C
Pine barrens boneset Eupatorium resinosum Yes C
White-wicky Kahnia cuneata No E-SC
Boykin's lobelia Lobelia boykinii Yes C
Panhandle lily Lilium iridollae No C
Roughleaf yellow-eyed grass Xyris scabrifolia No C
Savanna cowbane Oxypolis tenrata No E
Wavyleaf wild quinine Parthenium radfordii Yes W2
False Coco Pteroglossaspis ecristata Yes E
Well's sandhill pixie-moss Pyxidanthera barbulata var. Yes E
brevifolia
Awned meadowbeauty Rhexfa aristosa No T
Pickering's morning-glory Stylisma p. var. pickeringii Yes E
Smooth bog-asphodel Tofieldia glabra Yes C
Loose watermilfoil Myriophyllum laxmn No T
Conferva pondweed Potamogeton co? fervoides No C
Spring-flowering goldenrod Solidago verna Yes E
Venus flytrap Dionaea muscipula No C-SC
Bog spicebush Lindera subcoriacea No E
Carolina bogmint Macbridea caroliniana Yes C
Wireleafdropseed Sporobolusteretifolius No T
NC Status: SC, E, T, W2, SR, and C denote Special Concern, Endangered, Threatened, Watch List,
Significantly Rare, and Candidate, respectively.
Candidate 2 (C2) species are defined as taxa for which there is some evidence of vulnerability, but
for which there is not enough data to warrant a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, or Proposed Threatened at this time. These species are mentioned here for information
purposes, should they become federally protected in the future. Specific surveys for any of these
species were not conducted, nor were these species observed during the site visit.
State Listed Species:
Plant or animal species which are on the state list as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special
Concern (SC) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G. S.
113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202. 12 et seq.).
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program records indicate no known populations of the state
listed species occurring within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of the project site.
12
A
Impacts
Impacts on plant communities are reflective of the relative abundance of each system present in the
study area. It should be noted that estimated impacts were derived using the entire proposed right-of-
way. Project constriction often does not require the entire right-of-way and therefore actual impacts
may be less. Table 4 summarizes potential plant community impacts which could result from the
proposed bridge replacement.
TABLE 4
Impacts to Plant Communities for Alternative 1 in Hectares (Acres
Plant Communities Permanent Impact Temporary Impact
Floodplain Hardwood Forest 0.13 (0.33) 0.35 (0.86)
Upland Mixed Forest 0.01 (0.03) 0.04 (0.11)
Urban/Disturbed 0.08 0.20 0.14 0.34
TOTAL 0.22 (0.56) 0.53(l.31)
Note: Permanent Impacts are based on a 24-meter (80-foot) corridor of the alignment.
Temporary Impacts are based on an 18-meter (60-foot) corridor of the alignment.
Impacts to plant communities as a result of bridge replacements for Alternative 1 are restricted to
narrow strips adjacent to the existing bridges and roadway segments. Bridge and approach
improvements occur primarily within disturbed right-of-way limits and hardwood forest edges. The
loss of hardwood forest habitat is likely to reduce the number of plant species which serve as shelter,
nesting and foraging habitat for numerous species of wildlife.
The proposed action will result in loss or displacement of known terrestrial plant or animal habitat.
Habitat affected by the proposed action include Urban/Disturbed and Hardwood Forested areas. The
Urban/Disturbed area is utilized by opportunistic plant species such as greenbrier and Japanese
honeysuckle and mobile species such as rodents, lizards and snakes that can recover quickly from
construction impacts. The hardwood forest areas bordering the South River will receive disturbances
next to the existing bridge area. The South River should continue to provide adequate habitat areas
for mammals, reptiles and birds.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will utilize the best management practices for the
proposed action to limit affects on the aquatic ecosystem. The disturbance of the stream bed and
sedimentation from the banks could affect aquatic life (fish, mollusks, and benthic invertebrates) both
at the project site as well as down stream reaches.
Short term impacts to water quality can be anticipated from construction-related activities, which may
increase sedimentation and turbidity. Impacts will be minimized by the use of best management
practices, including implementation of stringent erosion and sedimentation control measures during
construction.
Long term impacts to water resources are not expected as a result of proposed improvements. The
new bridge will maintain.the present flow to protect stream integrity. Increased runoff from roadway
13
M
surfaces will be partially mitigated by providing for vegetated road shoulders and limited use of
ditching where ever possible.
Permit Coordination
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.O.E. 1344), a permit
will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters
of the United States". Since the subject project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion, it is likely that
this project will be subject to the Nationwide Permit Provisions of 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23. This permit
authorizes any activities, work and discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or
financed, in whole or in part, by another federal agency and that the activity is "categorically
excluded" from environmental documentation because it is included within a category of actions
which neither individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment. However, final
permit decisions are left to the discretionary authority of the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the N.C. Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources, will also be required. This certificate is issued for any activity which
may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal permit is required.
Compensatory mitigation is not required under a Nationwide permit. Erosion and sedimentation
control measures will be strictly enforced during construction activities to minimize unnecessary
impacts to stream and wetland ecosystems. Best Management Practices will also be implemented. Fill
material from the temporary detour within the floodplain will be removed and the area restored, to
the extent reasonably possible, to promote regeneration of the pre-construction conditions.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge will
result in safer traffic operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack
of substantial environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of the current North Carolina Department of Transportation standards and
specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No change in land
use is expected to result from the construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-Way acquisition will be
limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
14
s
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to adversely
affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The proposed project will not require right-of-way acquisition or easements from any land protected
under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106, codified at Title 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that if a
federally funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a property listed on or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an
opportunity to comment. The project is also subject to compliance with Section 4(f) of the
Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended.
To comply with those requirements, the North Carolina Department of Transportation provided
documentation on the subject project for submittal to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation
Office. There are no structures over fifty years of age in the Area of Potential Effect (APE), depicted
in Figure 2. Correspondence with the State Historic Preservation Officer (see Appendix) indicates
that no National Register-listed or eligible properties are located within the area of potential effect.
Since there are no properties either listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
within the APE, no further compliance with Section 106, with respect to architectural resources, is
required.
In response to a scoping letter from the North Carolina Department of Transportation, the Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer, in a memorandum dated December 19, 1994 (see Appendix),
recommended that "no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project."
Therefore, no archaeological work was conducted for the project.
This project has been coordinated with the United States Soil Conservation Service. The Farmland
Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to consider the potential
impact to prime farmland of all land acquisition and construction projects. There are no soils
classified as prime, unique, or having state or local importance in the vicinity of the project.
Therefore, the project will not involve the direct conversion of farmland acreage within these
classifications.
The project is located in Cumberland County which has been determined to be in compliance with
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Part 51 is not applicable because the proposed
project is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effect on
the air quality of this attainment area.
This project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, the impact on noise levels and
air quality will not be substantial. Noise levels could increase during construction but will be
15
M
temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation, Plans for air quality
in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for noise analysis of Title 23 CFR Part 772
and for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the National Environmental Policy
Act.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina
Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no underground
storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Cumberland County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The
approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 6. The amount of floodplain
area to be affected is not considered to be substantial.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in alignment will result
in a crossing of about the same magnitude. All reasonable measures will be taken to minimize any
possible harm.
The project will not increase the upstream limits of the 100-year floodplain.
In the vicinity of the project, there is a single family residence located within the limits of the 100-year
floodplain.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental
impacts will result from implementation of the project.
16
4f
4f
4f
4f
4f
4f
4f
._?'?
61
SIDE VIEW
EAST APPROACH
LOOKING WEST
WEST APPROACH
LOOKING EAST
FIGURE
116
EL
_o
z ?
m E
M W i
z
}o
a

~ 3>
z
Z
E" w
0
U R:
-j E- _ 0
<
O O
O?
o
?
, 4t
v

CL
d UOZZr
N
V a1 OD (V
X
v
2z

a ?
> 04
o
a L1?
M
O

E+t] 0. N v?

i
E

J J
z Z
O O

W W
fn Cn _

U Z

a U W a?
o
p t
0 <V ^ •-• •-
L4J 0 0
N N
CL X
CL LLS CL O
CL cr- CL co
< CL
N
J J •_
U U ca
a
H H D

a?
CD

W ?O O ? 'O
M
•
2
4
?
CL F
6 I
A
N
CL f
6

d
v
a?
t v
r O j
O
? L
> C/)
N
F- F- j
co co 3
J n- F-

? II it II
? N N
Y J CL 1-

L
tL.
O
? d
z E...
H W

d Z
Q a
w
[] j
d Z ? Z
Z
a0UW
.
aHx
oFw?
?
o ?a
a
U O Z V U M

x O?
b
o
0o v

v ,?2ZU
E
0
22 00
p?
cd 00 N

0 > C l
?
0
W
U rn

O

M N ?
a
H

Z
O
Z
O a
H
U
W W

o = Q

.. s O

M

-? z o00
-
C>
(?
M of rn
00
v 7 >
73
E?
U
?o
v ? o
N CD
N
Q, a
y
cN c 00

U
Q CN O\ O
N

z
0
H
U

w

C7
w
16
xland County
ver South River
idge #37
3-2819
I_
000 '
- STATY J= 1 ?F
qtr--' 7 "??'``? O
__2p
'-?-- DEC 2 2 1994
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
December 19, 1994
MEMORANDUM
Division of Arc Histo
William S. Price,
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook 11 ! //L ?t_J
Deputy State Fisto`tic'Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Group VII Bridge Replacement Projects (fifteen
bridges), Multicounty, CH 95-E-4220-0305
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have reviewed the list of fifteen bridges planned for replacement. With the
exception of B-2830, Greene County on NC 123 over Contentnea Creek on which
we commented at a "meeting of the minds" in 1994, we have no record of having
seen these proposed projects.
Given our lack of staff in the Survey and Planning Branch to review the potential
impacts of these replacements on historic buildings, we are unable to respond to
your request for comments at this time. We suggest you direct your consultants,
MA Engineering, to make an appointment with Renee Gledhill-Earley to check our
maps and files or have her review aerial photographs or maps of the project areas.
Our comments with regard to archaeological resources are as follows:
Bridge 23 on NC 123 over Contentnea Creek, B-2830, Greene County, ER 94-.
8699
There are no recorded archaeological sites within the immediate project vicinity,
although the area south of the existing bridge contains a very high probability for
the presence of prehistoric resources. It is likely that we will recommend an
archaeological survey for this project, but we are unable to complete our review
without project details and location. Please forward them as soon as they are
available.
3
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 Q?9

H. F. Vick
December 19, 1994, Page 2
Bridge 109 on SR 1734 over New Hope Creek, B-2852, Orange "County
Archaeological site 31 OR438* * is likely to be affected by the proposed bridge
replacement project. This historic period mill dam is located across New Hope
Church north of SR 1734. We recommend that the project area be surveyed and
site 31 OR438 * * be tested and evaluated for its National Register eligibility if it is
to be affected by the project.
Bridge 2 on SR 1003 over Pig Basket Creek, B-2850, Nash County
Bridge 14 on SR 1609 over Fishing Creek, B-2828, Granville County
Bridge 13 on SR 1530 over Haw River, B-2802, Alamance County
Bridge 289 on SR 1152 over Swift Creek, B-2871, Wake County
Bridge 2 on SR 1529 over Haw River, B-2801, Alamance County
There are no recorded archaeological sites located in the project vicinity.
However, we are unable to assess the project's potential effects upon as yet
unrecorded resources without a project location. As soon as a location and
detailed project information (including new right-of-way, approach work, detour
structures) is available, please forward it to us so we may complete our review.
Bridge 37 on NC 73 over Big Mountain Creek, B-1336, Richmond County
Bridge 15 on SR 1100 .over Barnards Creek, B-2595, New Hanover County
Bridge 27 on NC 904 over Scipped Swamp, B-2807, Brunswick County
Bridge 37 on US 13 over South River, B-2819, Cumberland and Sampson Counties
Bridge 82 on SR 1456 over Deep River, B-2849, Moore County
Bridge 45 on NC 211 over Raft Swamp, B-2860, Robeson County
Bridge 61 on SR 1935 over Ten Mile Swamp, B-2863, Robeson County
Bridge 32 on SR 1433 and SR 1310 over Lumber River, B-2866, Robeson and
Scotland Counties
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend
that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
B. Church
T. Padgett
1 f fyT `r TAI,, y.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resoufces
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director
February 21, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Barbara Church
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: Renee Gledhill-Earley
Environmental RevievJ" oator
Historic Preservation Office
SUBJECT: Concurrence Forms
Attached are the fully executed concurrence forms for properties not eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places for the following projects:
Alamance County, B-2801; Federal Aid BRZ-1529(2), Replace Bridge No. 2
on SR 1529 over Prong of Haw River
Alamance County, B-2802, Federal Aid BRSTP-1530(1), Replace Bridge No.
13 on SR 1530 over Haw River
Brunswick County, B-2807, Federal Aid BRSTP-904(2), Replace Bridge No.
27 on NC 904 over Scippio Swamp
Cumberland County, B-2819, Federal Aid BRSTP-13(3), Replace Bridge No.
37 on US 13 over South River
Granville County, B-2828, Federal Aid BRZ-1609(1), Replace Bridge No. 14
on SR 1609 over Fishing Creek
Greene County, B-2830, Federal Aid BRSTP-123(1), Replace Bridge No. 123
on NC 123 over Contentnea Creek
More County, B-2849, Federal Aid, BRZ-1456(3), Replace Bridge No. 82 on
SR 1456 over Deep River
Nash County, B-2850, Federal Aid BRZ-1003(13), Replace Bridge No. 2 on
SR 1003 over Pig Basket Creek
New Hanover County, B-2595, Federal Aid BRSTP-11.00(5Replace Bridge
No. 15 on SR 1 100 over Barnards Creek
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ?v?
s. r
Barbara Church
February 21, 1995, Page 2
Orange County, B-2852, Federal Aid BRSTP-1734(2), Replace Bridge No.
: 109 on SR 1734 over New Hope Creek
Richmond County, B-1336, Federal Aid BRSTP-6491(2), Replace Bridge No.
37 on NC 73 over Big Mountain Creek
Robeson County, B-2860, Federal Aid BRSTP-21 1(1), Replace Bridge No. 45
on NC 211 over Raft Swamp
Robeson County, B-2863, Federal Aid BRZ-1935(1), Replace Bridge No. 61
on SR 1935 over Ten Mile Swamp
Scotland County, B-2866, Federal Aid BRSTP-1433(1), Replace Bridge No.
32 on SR 1433 over Lumber River
Wake County, B-2871, Federal Aid BRSTP-1152(2), Replace Bride No. 289
on SR 1 152 over Swift Creek
Please distribute to the appropriate engineer and to Federal Highway
Administration. We have kept copies for our files.
RGE:slw
Attachments
a 6. • k
TIC'' pj_ 2oIzI Federal Aid # 13RIiitP - t3(3? County CAAFADER_LAt?t7 71, CONCURRENCE FORnti1
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGIS'T'ER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description
KUL.Acf, E3woGE ?}o. 3"1 ost t3 ov6Q- SourEt ??
On --3 "uaRy 26 , M5s , representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
_? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
-eviewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
? Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
.k11 parties present agreed
? there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
? 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.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as - are
considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of therm- s necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
???v?-ate 2?i/ SS
representative, NCDOT Date
-'HwA, fot%e Divisi6n Administrator, or other Federal Agency
epresentative, SETO Date
/? z 16 Q s
State Historic Preservation Officer D to
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.