20010227 Ver 1_Complete File_20010213

P"ECEjVED

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GovERNoR
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
October 8, 1997
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Ms. Cyndi Bell
DWQ - DENR
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
v0; 1,; 1997,
?N?IRnn+???rq?SCIEryCES
d C c) ZZ-7
LA-gybe, r
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
Review of Scoping Sheet for the following projects:
Project T.I.P. County Bridge No. State Route Planning Engineer
B-3267 Wilson No. 29 n? SR 1`653 ill Goodwin
B-2110 Brunswick No. 62 N NC 21,1 ill Goodwin
B-3365 Richmond No. 33 SR 1124 ill Goodwin
B-2951 Davidson No. 135 NC 109 /Dennis Pipkin
B-3322 Cumberland No. 36 Cir 1-95B/US 301B ill Goodwin
B-3179 Guilford No. 459 US 29 Dennis Pipkin
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets and location maps for the
subject projects. The purpose of this information and the related review procedure is to have an
early "meeting of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the projects. Scoping meetings for these projects are scheduled for
n the Planning and Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470).
These scoping meetings will be held back to back beginning at 9:00 A. M. for B-3267 and
B-2110. The remaining project meetings will begin at 9:30 A. M. in the order shown above.
These meetings typically last 10 to 15 minutes per project so all attendees should plan to arrive at
the beginning of th r 9:30 A. M. session as applicable. You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting, mail them to us prior to the meeting, or e-mail them to
[e-mail] prior to the meeting.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If there are any
questions about the meetings or the scoping sheets, please call the indicated Project Planning
Engineer, at 733-3141.
HFV/bg
Attachments /\j ` n D4 yule 'k? s4r f? c w JI ` d e Or Cv(V vt
l _11
,
,,.swFa
?d Ypau.F
aq 4
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY 1501 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NC 27699-1501 LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
February 2, 2001
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office 010227
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Mr. David Timpy
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
Subject: Replacement of Bridge No. 36 on I-9513/US 301B over Rockfish Creek,
Cumberland County. Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-301B(l), State Project
No. 8.1442901, TIP No. B-3322. Nationwide Permit 23 Application.
Please find enclosed three copies of the Project Planning Report and Natural
Resources Technical Report for the above referenced project. Bridge No. 36 will be
replaced on approximately the same location and elevation as the existing bridge, and
will be 38 feet wide and 200 feet long. Traffic will be detoured on the parallel bridge for
northbound 1-95B/US 301B during construction. North and south bound traffic will be
reduced to one lane each during construction: No wetlands and 38 linear feet of stream
channel are contained within the proposed project limits.
The existing superstructure and substructure of Bridge No. 36 are constructed
entirely of concrete. There is potential for components of the bridge to be dropped into
Waters of the United States. The resulting temporary fill associated with this bridge is
225 cubic yards.
This project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not
anticipate requesting an individual permit, but propose to proceed under Nationwide
Permit 23 in accordance with the Federal Register of December 13, 1996, Part VII,
Volume 61, Number 241.
y,
We anticipate a 401 General Certification will apply to this project, and are
providing one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Ms. Sue Brady at
[phone].
Sincerely,
h.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/attachment
Mr. David Franklin, COE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Timothy V. Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachment
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Mr. J.'Victor Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. D. R. Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Terry R. Gibson, P.E., Division 6 Engineer
Ms. Robin Young, Project Development and Environmental Analysis
William . Gilmore, P. E., Manager
i
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM 010227
TIP Project No.: B-3322
State Project No.: 8.1442901
Federal-Aid Project No.: BRSTP-301130)
A. Project Description:
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 36 on 1-95B/US 301B southbound over Rockfish
Creek in Cumberland County. The bridge will be replaced with a new bridge 200 feet in
length. The bridge will be 38 feet wide. This width will provide for a 24 foot travelway, a
4 foot offset on the inside [median side] and a 10 foot offset on the outside [shoulder
side] of the proposed bridge. The new approach roadway will also have a 24-foot
travelway with 4 foot paved shoulders and a total shoulder width of at least 8 feet.
Shoulder width will be increased to at least 11 feet where guardrail is warranted. Traffic
will be detoured onto the parallel bridge for northbound I-95B/US 301B during
construction. North and south bound traffic will be reduced to one lane each during
construction.
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 36 has a sufficiency rating of 19.2 out of 100. The deck of Bridge
No. 36 is only 31 feet wide. For these reasons Bridge No. 36 needs to be replaced.
C: Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following Type II improvements which apply to the project:
Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking weaving,
turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing pavement
(3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes, including
safety treatments
g. Providing driveways pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
y
t

a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/ or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing hazards
and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
3. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of grade
separation replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting ( no red lead paint), scour repair,
fender systems, and minor structural improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/ or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of right-
of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction is
not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near a street with adequate
capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and ancillary
facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are required and there is
not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of passenger
shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements ) when located in
a commercial area or other high activity center in which there is adequate street
2
capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction is
not inconsistent with existing. zoning and where there is no significant noise
impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land acquisition
loans under section 3 (b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and protective buying will be
permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited number of parcels. These types
of land acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in
alignment for planned construction projects, which may be required in the NEPA
process. No project development on such land may proceed until the NEPA
process has been completed.
D.
Special Project Information
Environmental Commitments:
1. All standard measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize environmental
impacts.
2. In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the
discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States." A Corps
of Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23 will be applicable for this project.
3. A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401
Water Quality General Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Corps of
Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23.
Estimated Costs:
Construction
Right of Way
Total
Estimated Traffic:
Current
Year 2020
$ 1,150,000
$ 32,500
$ 1,182,500
7,250 VPD
13,000 VPD
Traffic is for southbound bridge only.
L

Proposed Typical Roadway Section:
The new approach roadway will have a 24-foot travelway with 4 foot paved
shoulders and a total shoulder width of at least 8 feet. Shoulder width will be increased to
at least 11 feet where guardrail is warranted.
_ Design Speed:
60 mph
Functional Classification:
I-95B/US 301B is classified as an Urban Other Principal Arterial Route in the
Statewide Functional Classification system.
Division Office Comments:
The Division Engineer supports the chosen alternate and proposed method for
detouring traffic during construction.
E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II actions.
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any unique or x
important natural resource?
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally listed
endan
ered
th
t
d
i
X
g
or
rea
ene
spec
es may occur?
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of permanent
and/or temporary wetland taking less than one-third (1/3) acre

and have all practicable measures to avoid and minimize ?
X
takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands ? X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely impacted
x
4

i
by proposed construction activities? I
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding Water i X
Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW) ? I1
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States in any
X
of the designated mountain trout counties?
711
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage tanks
(UST's) or hazardous materials sites? ? X
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the project
significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any "Area of X
Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) D
th
t i
l
C
t
l B
i
R
A
t
? X
oes
e projec
nvo
ve
oas
a
arr
er
esources
c
resources
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required? F I X
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing

regulatory floodway? ?
X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
-
changes? F
1 X
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned growth or ? X
land use for the area?
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or business? F-1 X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effect on any minority or
1-1
low-income population? X
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X F1
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control? F-1 X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/or land
use of any adjacent property? 1-1 X
5
I.
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
X
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? 11,
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan and/or
Transportation Improvement Program (and is, therefore, in X
conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)?
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic volumes? X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing ?
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge be
replaced at its existing location (along the existing facility) and
will all construction proposed in association with the bridge X ?
replacement project be contained on the existing facility?
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? 1-1 X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws ?
relating to the environmental aspects of the action? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on properties eligible for or ?
listed on the National Register of Historic Places? X
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains which are ? -
important to history or pre-history ? X
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, ? -
historic sites or historic bridges, as defined in Section 4(f) of the X
U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966)?
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as defined
by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1966, X
as amended?
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent to a
river designated as a component of or proposed for inclusion in
the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers? X
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
None.
6
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.: B-3322
State Project No.: 8.1442901
Federal-Aid Project No.: BRSTP-301BO)
Project Description:
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 36 on I-95B/US 301B over Rockfish Creek in
Cumberland County. The bridge will be replaced with a new bridge 200 feet in length.
The bridge will be 38 feet wide. This width will provide for a 24 foot travelway, a 4 foot
offset on the inside [median side] and a 10 foot offset on the outside [shoulder side] of the
proposed bridge. The new approach roadway will also have a 24-foot travelway with 4
foot paved shoulders and a total shoulder width of at least 8 feet. Shoulder width will be
increased to at least 11 feet where guardrail is warranted. Traffic will be detoured onto
the parallel bridge for northbound I-95B/US 301B during construction. North and south
bound traffic will be reduced to one lane each during construction.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
X TYPE II (A)
TYPE II (B)
Approved:
Date Assistant Manager,
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
C `
-?- ?? r "C-L- C, .*7?'
Date Project Planning Unit Head
ICA
-(_V I!
Project Planning Engineer
For Type II (B) projects only:
Not Required
Date Division Administrator,
Federal Highway Administration
7
' N

2M-Z
V /
/
I
I
't s

01
of N0"TM cyyo North Carolina Department of
Transportation
Division of Highways.
Planning & Environmental Branch
Cumberland County
Replace Bridge No. 36 on I-95 Bus./ US 301
Over Rockfish Creek
B-3322
Figure One

BOAT[
a>
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
December 16, 1997
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge #36 on 1-95 Bus/US 301 over
Rockfish Creek, Cumberland County, B-3322,
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-301 B(1), State
Project 8.1442901, ER 98-7697
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
We regret staff was unable to attend the scoping meeting for the above project on
November 4, 1997. However, Debbie Bevin met with Bill Goodwin of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) on December 2, 1997, to discuss
the project and view the project photographs and aerial.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend that
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 g??
Nicholas L. Graf
December 16, 1997, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
lw
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: ?H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
..? STATE o
N}yD T rAel?y
1. ? Y
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS T O SON SECRETARY
GOVERNOR
25 January 1999
MEMORANDUM TO: Bill Goodwin, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
FROM: Susan Brady, Environmental Biologist
Natural Systems Unit
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 36 on I-95B/US 30113 over
Rockfish Creek, Cumberland County. Federal Aid Project No
BRSTP-301B(1), State Project No. 8.1442901, TIP # B-3322•
This report is submitted to assist in the preparation of a c regoua rtes t Categorical
ans
Exclusion (PCE) for the subject project. Water resources, bioti
jurisdictional issues such as wetlands and federally protected species are included in this
report.
This project involves the proposed replacement of Bridge existing 3 on
ofB/US
301B over Rockfish Creek in Cumberland County (Fig-1). Th
e existing
30.5 m (100.0 ft), as is the proposed right of way. Th cross section consists of a
four-lane median divided section, as is the proposed cross section. This bridge duringi onstruc ton.
replaced in-place, with traffic maintained on the northbound
length is approximately 365.8 m (1200.0 ft).
METHODOLOGY
Information sources used in the pre-field investigation of the stFdh and Wildlife
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps (Hope Mills),
Service (FWS) National Wetland Inventory Maps (Hone Mills), an as CDOT aerial from
photographs of project area (1:1200). Water resource
publications of the Department of Environment, Health and Analysis Natural Resources (DWQT
1996) and from the NC Center for Geographic Information
concerning the
Sensitivity Base Map of Cumberland County, 1995).
N
\ 1 E3
\
\
\
J
l
1131
1 12-74
7 1353 O
1126
r1l274
/
232=
Q?.
I--Ardulusa
2273

/b`.01 "C+yO ?-urth Carolina Department of
Transportation
.H
= Division of Highways
o.
??M Por, Planning & Environmental Branch
•OF TR?Ni
Cumberland County
Replace Bridge No. 36 on I-95 Bus./ US 301
Over Rockfish Creek
B-3333
Fissure One

occurrence of federal and state protected species in the study
and spa a of there from the
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected species an database of rare species
January 1999). and the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP)
and unique habitats (checked 25 January 1999).
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by NCDOs
biologists Susan Brady and Shannon Simpson on 21 January
and their associated wildlife were identified
observation techn1999. iques: actives searching and
involved using one or more of the following
capture, visual observations (binoculars), and identifying
etland determination were performed
(sounds, scat, tracks and burrows). Jurisdictional
utilizing delineation criteria prescribed in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual" (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
DEFINITIONS
Definitions for areal descriptions used in this report are as follows: Project Study Project Area denotes the area bounded by proposed W limits-,
area; and Project Region
area extending 0.8 km (0.5 mi) on all sides of project
is equivalent to an area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map, with the
subject project occupying the central position.
WATER RESOURCES
Rockfish Creek [DWQ index no. 18-31-(23)] will be the only surface water
directly affected by the proposed project. This river lies within subbasin 030615 of the
Cape Fear River Basin and at this location, has a ision of Water Quality (DWQ)
Usage classification of C. This classification denotes recreation and agriculture.
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary The DWQ has initiated a basinwide approach
he
coal the DWQ, formerly
17 river basins within the state. To accomplish this
the Department of Environmental Management (DEM), collects biological
All , chemic l and
planning. approach to
physical data that can be used in basinwide assessment
reassessed every five years. Prior to the implementation
Athe mbient Network (managed
water quality management, the Benthic Macroin
by the DEM) assessed water quality by sampling for benthic macroinvertebrate invertebr organisms at fixed monitoring sites throughout ththus, state.
the speciesarinhness andaoverall tes are
sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality;
biomass of these organisms are reflections of water qat son was sampled in July 1983band
sampling station is located at the project site. This
received a taxa richness value of 25, a Biotic Index kvalue of 4, en more recen ly ( 998, 119901) ation the
of Excellent. Benthic macroinvertebrate samples
I-95Bypass bridge (approximately 2 miles downstream) also received Bioclassifications

of Excellent. Rockfish Creek is listed as fully supporting its designated uses at this
location.
The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake and
estuarine water quality monitoring stations strategically located for the collection of
physical and chemical water quality data. The waterbody's freshwater or saltwater
classification and corresponding water quality standards determine the type of water
quality data or parameters that are collected. An AMS sampling station is located at the
project site. Samples taken from this and other stations on Rockfish Creek indicate that
excessive nutrients and fecal coliform counts can be a problem in this creek, caused
mainly by non-point sources.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. Any discharger
is required to register for a permit. No NPDES dischargers are located within 1.6 km (1.0
mi) of the project area.
Impacts to surface waters are anticipated as a result of construction
activities. This may include scouring of the streambed, siltation, runoff of toxic
substances, and damage to the stream banks. Impacts are best minimized by limiting
earth removal, vegetation removal, and in-stream activities, and strictly enforcing
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters.
Anadromous fish are a valuable resource and their migration must not be
adversely impacted. The Draft Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish
Passage provides guidance to the NCDOT to ensure that replacement of existing stream
crossing structures will not impede the movement of anadromous fish. These guidelines
should be used in projects located in the coastal plain which are associated with perennial
streams.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or
WS-II) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the
project study area.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
There are two terrestrial communities found within the project boundaries:
maintained/disturbed and Coastal Plain Levee Forest (Blackwater Subtype). The
maintained/disturbed community is the most common, and the right-of-way barely
extends beyond the roadside shoulder area into the woods beyond. One aquatic
community is found within the project boundaries, a Coastal Plain Perennial Stream.
The maintained/disturbed community is found on the roadside shoulder, under
and around the bridge, and in the median. Vegetation found in this community includes
various grasses such as fescue (Festuca spp.) and foxtail grass (Setaria geniculata),
3
J
broomsedge (Andropogon spp.), Japanese grass (Ylicrostegium viminea), St.-John's-wort
goldenrod (Solidago spp.), sneezeweed (Helenium autumnale),
(Flypericum sp.), a Aster spp.), dandelion (Taraxacum
narrowleaved plantain (Plantego lanceolata), asters ( giant cane (Arundinaria
of?cinale), ebony spleenwort (AsPlenium platyneuron), g
gigantea), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), and blackberries (Rubus spp.).
The Coastal Plain Levee Forest (Blackwater Subtype) is located on both sides of
river Vegetation
Rockfish Creek, just outside of the maintained/disturbed community.
h (Be ula
in the canopy of this community includes loblolly pine (Pan ) _
nigra), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), elm (Ulmus amer cana), sweetg is composed
and water oak (Quercus nigra). The understory (Liquidambar styracifiua), and blueberry (Vaccinium spp.)• The vine layer is
of privet, titi (Cyrilla r•acemiflora),
comprised of Japanese honeysuckle, greenbrier, and yellow jasmine (Gelsemium
semPervirens). The herb layer includes ebony gspleenwo nand St.-John's-wortIt is
likely that the herb layer is more diverse durm? the g o g season.
Rockfish Creek, a Coastal Plain Perennial Stream.is fairly large, fast m -flowing
ft)' roximately
15.2 stream. At the time of the site
determinRocksh ed bec because he waterpwas stained with tannins.
wide. The depth could not high. No aquatic
The substrate is sand, and the banks are approximately 15.2 m (50.0 ft)
vegetation was observed.
Terrestrial fauna likely to be found in the project area a includ s ra vioo ginianusn on
lotor), opossum* (DidelPhis virginiana), white-tailed deer*
g caro gray squirrel* (Sciurus carolinensis), southern short-tailed a shrew ?Pj?lhodon glutlnosus).
white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), slimy ingneck snake
spring peeper (Hvla crucifer), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), r
(Diadophis pznctatus), and black racer (Coluber constrictor).
Fish as
Aquatic fauna in the project area may include larvae of va ous insects. such
mayflies (Ephemeroptera), stoneflies (Plecoptera), and redfin pickerel
which may be present include Eastern mudminnow (Umbra pygmaea),
(Esox americanus), bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), spottail shiner (Notropis
fined madtom (Notaarus insignis),
haadsonius), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), marg ge us ins bass
hredoderus sayanias), various sunfish (Lepomis spp.), lar?
pirate perch (Ap
(MicroPteris salmoides), and tesselated darter (Etheostom olmst lei). Additionally frog (Rana
amphibians such as the green frog (Rana clamatans) and turtle (ChelYdra serpentana)
spheaocephala) may be common
odia taxispilota)tcan bep important predators in the aquatic
and brown water snake (Ner
environment.

L,
IMPACTS TO TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of each
community present within the study area. Project construction may result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Table 1 summarizes potential quantitative
losses to these communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated impacts for
each alternate are derived using the entire proposed right of way width. Usually, project
construction does not require the entire right of way; therefore, actual impacts may be
considerably less.
Table 1. Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities.
Community type Impacts
Maintained/Disturbed 1.11 (2.74)
Coastal Plain Levee Forest (Blackwater Subtype) 0.01 (0.02J
Total 1.12 (176)
Values cited are in hectares (acres)
Plant communities found within the proposed project area serve as nesting and
sheltering habitat for various wildlife. Replacing Bridge No. 36 may reduce habitat for
faunal species, thereby diminishing faunal numbers. However, due to the size and scope
of this project, it is anticipated that impacts to fauna will be minimal.
Areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road shoulders and
early successional habitat. Reduced habitat will displace some wildlife further from the
roadway while attracting other wildlife by the creation of more early successional habitat.
Animals temporarily displaced by construction activities will repopulate areas suitable
for the species.
JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
Surface Waters and Wetlands
Surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States." as defined Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register
(CFR) Section 328.3(a). Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR Section 328.3(b), are those areas
that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to
place fill material into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Criteria to determine the presence of jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology. No jurisdictional wetlands are
located in the project study area.
5
e
J
Rockfish Creek is a jurisdictional soon of he biological. physical ondf vher
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Discuss
quality aspects of this stream is presented in previous sections of this report.
Permit Requirements
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters areanticipated.
permit will be required from he
provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, COE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States."
A Section 404 Nationwide 23 Permit hroeect oThis permit authorizes act vities
project.
Waters of the United States from the proposed
financed
egulated
has det rmined
undertaken, assisted, authorized, r. tuna agency
another Federal agency or department where that
Policy regulation for implementing the
that pursuant to the council on environmental quality
procedural provisions of the National Environmental Act; rom O 1 that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically exclo of ed ion which neithetai
documentation because it is included within a category individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
and; -of (2) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been
a exclusif onlandc onnotice curs wi h that agency or
department's application for the categoric
determination.
A North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality
General Certification is required prior to the issuance of the Section he durat ct of t 0e1
Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted
construction or other land manipulations.
Federally-Protected Species
plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered, d, Threatened, Section
Proposed Endangered and Proposed Threatened are protected
7 and section 9 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA )of c1973, as ted spec wended. As of 15
January 1999, the FWS lists the following federally p for Cumberland
County (Table 2). A brief description of each species' characteristics and habitat
requirements follows.
C
t
Table 2. Federally-Protected Species for Cumberland County.
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Alligator mississippiensis American alligator T(S/A)
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker E
Neonympha mitchelli francisci St. Francis' satyr butterfly E
Isotria medeoloides Small-whorled pogonia T*
Lindera melissifolia Pondberry E
Lysimachia asperulaefolia Rough-leaved loosestrife E
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E
Schwalbea americana American chaffseed E
"E"--Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
"T'--Threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
,W,--denotes no observation in Cumberland County in 50 years.
Alligator mississippiensis (American alligator) Threatened due to Similarity
Animal Family: Crocodylidae of Appearance
Date Listed: 6/4/87
The American alligator is a large roughbacked reptile with a broad rounded snout.
Most adults range in size from 6 to 12 feet. Habitat for the alligator includes river systemL.
canals, lakes, swamps, bayous, and coastal marshes. The alligator will eat almost anything
of suitable size including mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds, fish, and crustaceans.
Species that have the federal classification of Threatened due to Similarity of
Appearance are not biologically endangered or threatened and do not receive protection
under Section 7, and no survey of the project area is required. However, due to its
similarity of appearance to other protected crocodilians, federal regulations, such as hide
tagging requirements, are maintained on the commercial trade to help control illegal
taking of the protected species. The NHP database of rare species and unique habitats
contains no record of the American alligator within the study area, although there is a
record of a sighting approximately 7.7 km (2.0 mi stream distance) upstream of the
project location.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is entirely black
and white except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The back of
the RCW is black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this
woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek patch
surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
7

J
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf
pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging and nesting habitat.otA fowrested stas ands to contain at
other be
least 50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contit" years
trees that
are ?j appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest excliv gel The foraging rang0 of the
old and are contiguous with pine stands at least 10 years This acreage must be contiguous with
RCW is up to 200.0 hectares (500.0 acres).
suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually i locatedn s othat nies
are infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. high
from 3.6-30.3 m (12-100 ft) above the ground and average 9.1- 15.7 m (30-50 ft)
that surrounds the tree. The
They can be identified by a large incrustation of running sap
RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch approximately 38 days later.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION
NO EFFECT pine Nesting and foraging habitat requirements (old growth strands of sso Forested areas
considered necessary for the RCW are not present with project
rubsless than
in the project vicinity consist of mixed pinelhardwoodforests, which
The 0"/
pine and generally have a dense understory of hardwood saplings
f record
of habitats the projdoesect have a bridge. and
Natural Heritage Program database of rare species a unique
or a RCW cavity tree approximately 1.1 km (0 ) northwest
aand no habitat. treese t
d for it is possible that the project area could be use
were seen
communities in this area are not optimal RC . habitat. during the site visit. Therefore, no impact to the red-cockaded woodpecker will result from
c
project construction.
St. Francis' satyr) Endangered
1'Veonympha mitchelli francisci 1d
Animal Family: Nymphal
Federally Listed: 4/18/94 nspicuous
eyespots The Saint Francis' satyr is a small, dark brown itareoound to oval shaped
on the lower wing surface of the fore and hers j le0s. The eyespots are with a dark maroon brown center and a straw yellow border. Tltwo darker brown bands accentuated
with two bright orange bands along the Poste:ior wings and by
along the central portion of each wing.
The Saint Francis' satyr is known to inhabit wide, owet ften ad is odomina d by
sedges and other wetland graminoids. These wetlands are relic beaver acvity
and are boggy areas that are acidic and ephemeral. Succession the ese sites o Francisften lead is Saint ' either o
an ?
a pocosin or swamp dominated forest. The larval host
thought to be grasses, sedges and rushes.
8

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Habitat in the form of wet graminoid meadows is not present within the project
area. The only habitat present is maintained/disturbed and mixed/pine hardwood forest,
which are not suitable for this species. The NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare
species and unique habitats has no record for the presence of St. Francis' satyr within the
project vicinity. Therefore, no impact to St. Francis' satyr will result from project
construction.
Isotria medeoloides (small whorled pogonia) Threatened
Plant Family: Orchidaceae
Federally Listed: 9/10/8'_'
Flowers Present: mid May-mid June
Small whorled pogonia is a perennial orchid having long pubescent roots and a
hollow stem. Stems terminate in a whorl of five or six light green, elliptical leaves that are
somewhat pointed. One or two light green fiowers are produced at the end of the stem.
Flowers of small-whorled pogonia have short sepals.
The small whorled pogonia grows in "second growth deciduous" or deciduous-
coniferous forests, with an open canopy, open shrub layer, and sparse herb layer. It prefers
acidic soils. Flowering is inhibited in areas where there is relatively high shrub coverage
or high sapling density.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION
NO EFFECT
Habitat in the form of deciduous/coniferous forest with open canopy, open shrub
layer, and sparse herb layer is not present within the project boundaries. The majority of
the habitat that is present is maintained/disturbed community, and the small amount of
forest community that is within the project boundaries is not suitable for this species. The
NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats has no record
for the presence of small whorled pogonia within the project vicinity. Therefore, no impact
to small whorled pogonia will result from project construction.
Lindera melissifolia (pondberry) Endangered
Plant Family: Lauraceae
Federally Listed: 7/31/86
Flowers Present: March - early April
Pondberry is a deciduous, aromatic shrub that has a distinct sassafras-like odor.
Leaves in the pondberry are arranged alternately, have rounded bases, and droop
downward. It has small pale yellow flowers that appear in early spring before the leaves.
The fruit, which matures in August or September, is a bright red drupe.
e

ic soils. site'
Pondberry, grows in lowland habitats with hydrassociatedhwith the s are generally
marg ns of sinks.
flooded at some time during the growing season. It is
The soils sent ar sandy with a high peat content i
ponds. and other like depressions. es show se
ns of past fire maintenance andn
the subsurface. Areas inhabited by this specs
now have shrubby conditions. The plants generally grow in shady areas but may also be
found in areas that receive full sunlight.
NO EFFECT
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION
Habitat in the form of lowland communities with hYi identified during within
the project boundaries. There were no areas of hydric or peaty soil this
site visit, and the topography of the site is too steep
base of rare spec es and unique habitats has
species. The NC Natural Heritage Program dat
no within the project vicinity. Therefore, no impact
record for the presence of pondberry
to pondberry will result from project construction.
Lysimachia asperulaefolia (rough-leaved loosestrife) Endangered
Plant Family: Primulaceae
Federally Listed: 6/12/8?
Flowers Present: June
Rough-leaved loosestrife is a perennial herb having slender stems and whorled
leaves. This herb has showy yellow flowers, which usually occur in threes or fours. Fruits
are present from July through October.
Rough-leaved loosestrife is endemic to the coastal plaineanee andhillsgleaf p rierth and
South Carolina. This species occurs in the ecotones or edges b usually
wet,
uplands and pond pine pocosins (areas of dense shrub saturate and vine d growth
and on shallow oa anic
peat, poorly drained soil), on moist to seasonally soils overlaying sand. It has also been found to occuo p peat in dthe epressions shrub
community of large Carolina bays (shallow, elliptical, poorly draied of
unknown origins). The areas it occurs in are fire-maintained. ao dic leaved loosestrife
rarely occurs in association with hardwood stands and prefers soils.
NO EFFECT
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION
Habitat in the form of ecotones between longleaf pine
the Coastal Plains not
present within project boundaries. The habitats that are
present not Levee Forest and maintained/disturbed communities, andare and us suitable for this species.
que habitats has no
The NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare species
record for the presence of rough-leaved loosestrife within the construct inity. Therefore,
no impact to rough-leaved loosestrife will result from project
? )
L
Rhus michaccrii (Michaux's sumac) Endangered
Plant Family: Anacardiaceae
Federally Listed: 9/28/89
Flowers Present: June
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub. The bases of the
leaves are rounded and their edges are simply or doubly serrate. The flowers of Michaux's
sumac are greenish to white in color. Fruits, which develop from August to September on
female plants, are red densely short-pubescent drupes.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. Michaux's sumac is dependent on
some sort of disturbance to maintain the openness of its habitat. It usually grows in
association with basic soils and occurs on sand or sandy loams. Michaux's sumac grows
only in open habitat where it can get full sunlight. Michaux's sumac does not compete well
with other species, such as Japanese honeysuckle, with which it is often associated.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION UNRESOLVED
Habitat in the form of disturbed, open habitat with sandy soil is present within
project boundaries. It is possible that Michaux's sumac may occur at this site, although
none was seen during the site visit. Surveys for Michaux's sumac should be conducted in
May, during the growing season. The NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare
species and unique habitats has no record for the presence of Michaux's sumac within the
project vicinity.
Schwalbea americana (American chaffseed) Endangered
Plant Family: Scrophulariaceae
Federally Listed: 9/29/92
Flowers Present: late May-early June
American chaffseed is an erect herb whose stems branch only at the base (if at all).
The entire plant is pubescent, with upwardly curving hairs. The narrow leaves are
alternate, lance-shaped to elliptic and stalkless. The leaves are three veined and become
progressively smaller towards the top. It bears solitary flowers in the axils of the upper
most leaves. The purplish-v ellow flowers are arranged into racemes. The fruit is a long
narrow capsule, enclosed in a loose-fitting sack-like structure.
American chaffseed occurs in open, moist pine flatwoods, fire maintained
savannas, ecotonal areas between peat wetlands and open grass-sedge systems. Soils are
generally sandy, acidic, and seasonally moist to dry. Fire is important in the maintenance
of open habitat for the American chaffseed.
11
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION
Habitat in the form of open, moist within flat woods,
b°under eS•oTheamajority of the
wetland/grassland ecotones is not present Poje
fthe or this m lspecie tThe NC forest
that is resent is maintained/disturbed community, and
habitat p t boundaries is not suitable
or
community that is within the pro ec
Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique . Thhabitatsereforehas, no no record
impact to
t
construction. vicinity.
the presence of American chaffseed w'hthe
chaffseed will result from project
Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are 14 Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed for Cumberland County-
Federal Species of Concern are not afforded federal p?tectioy under the ESA and not
or
til the are formally proposed
subject to any of its provisions, including Section ,
tthose
listed as Threatened or Endangered. Federal Species oes on
ec a ware ere formerly
species
species that may or may not be listed in the future- T
candidate species, or species under a consideration
listing ng of Endangered, Threatened. Propose,
insufficient information to support a eyed,
Endangered and Proposed Threatened. Organisms
NaturaltHeriage Program (NHP)
Threatened, or Special Concern by the North Carolina list of rare plant and animal species are afforded statentpProtectrotection
on n de the State
n Act of
...:Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Conservatio
1979.
the species state status (if afforded state
Table 3 lists Federal Species of Concern,
protection) and the presence of suitable habitat within thth sd area ffer ea seep eecies s may
This species list is provided for information purposes as
be upgraded in the future.

3. Federal SF^^'°? "f Concern for Cumberland County
Table .
Scientific Name
Aimophila aestivalis
Heterodon simus
Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus
Fusconaia mason,
Lampsilis cariosa
Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana
Astragalus micha=ii
Dionea muscipula
Eupatorium resinosum
Kalmia cuneata
Lilium iridollae
Lindera subcoriacea
NO EFFECT
Common Name
Bachman's sparrow
Southern hognose snake
Northern pine snake
Atlantic pigtoe
Yellow lampmussel
Georgia indigo-bush
Sandhills milkvetch
Venus flytrap
Resinous boneset
White wicky
Sandhills bog lily
Bog spicebush
Status
SC
SR
Sc
T
E
C/PT
C-SC
T-SC
E-SC/PC
C/PT
E
Habitat
Ali o
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No

- 11
r
Litsea aestivalis Pondspice C No
Lobelia boykinii Bovkin's lobelia C No
:Llyriophyllum lctrum Loose watermilfoil T No
Oxypolis ternata Savanna cowbane W l No
Parnassia caroliniana Carolina grass-of-parnassus E No
Parthenium radfordii Wavyleaf wild quinine W2 No
Potamogeton confervoides Conferva pondweed C No
Pteroglossapsis ecristata Spiked medusa E No
Pyxidanthera barbulata var. brevistyla Sandhills pyxie-moss E Yes
Rhexia aristosa Awned meadowbeauty T No
Solidago pulchra Carolina goldenrod E No
Solidago verna Spring-flowering goldenrod E/PT Yes
Stylisma pickeringii var. pickeringii Pickering's dawnflower E Yes
Tooeldia glabra Carolina asphodel C Yes
Xyris scabrifolia Roughleaf yellow-eyed grass C Yes
"E"--An Endangered species is defined as one whose continued existence as a viable component of the
State's flora is determined to be in jeopardy.
"T'--A Threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered species within the foreseeabie
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
"SC"--A Special Concern species is defined as one which requires monitoring but may be collected and
sold under regulations adopted under the provisions of the Plant Protection and Conservation Act,
unless it is also listed as Threatened or Endangered, in which case only propagated material may be
traded or sold.
"C"--A Candidate species is defined as one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20
populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction (and
sometimes also by direct exploitation or disease). The species is also either rare throughout its
range or disjunct in North Carolina from a main range in a different part of the country or the
world.
"SR"--A Significantly Rare species is defined as one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with
1-20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction
(and sometimes also by direct- exploitation or disease). The species is generally more common
elsewhere in its range, occurring peripherally in North Carolina.
"/P_"--denotes a species which has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered, Threatener. or
Special Concern, but has not yet completed the listing process.
"W1"--A Watch Category 1 species is defined as a rare species whose status in North Carolina is relatively
well known and which appears to be relatively secure at this time.
"W2"--A Watch Category 2 species is defined as rare, but taxonomically questionable.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were any of
these species observed. A review of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database
of rare species and unique habitats revealed records for two Federal Species of Concern
near the project study area. Two populations of Sandhills milkvetch are recorded, at
approximately 1.1 km (0.7 mi) northwest of the bridge, and 1.6 km (1.0 mi) south of the
bridge. A population of Sandhills pyxie-moss is located approximately 1.0 km (0.6 mi)
west of the bridge, on Little Rockfish Creek. There is also a record of the Santee chub-
Coastal Plain population (Cyprinella zanema) in Rockfish Creek, immediately
downstream of the bridge. This species is listed as Special Concern in North Carolina,
and is not federally protected.
11

i
Please contact me at [phone] extension 335 if you have any further
questions regarding this project.
cc: David Schiller. Natural Systems Unit Head
File B-3322
14