19940733 Ver 1_Complete File_19940805

n
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP ((?/
TO: REF. O. OR OO M, LG.
r is
. ROM: t - REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.'
8.3. oI
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ?. PER 9UR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TOME ? PER YOUR REQUEST.
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS. ? FOR. YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ?INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS: -

AUG
1994 1
a ?
a
WETLAN
WATER UA T) % u?E

IE?' I ;`'J
LIT',!

,.
y?
,,
:?

v

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R.UEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR ?^ SECRETARY
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 e
August 1, 1994
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory. Branch
Dear Sir:
Subject: Sampson County, SR 1130, Replace Bridge No. 36
over Six Runs Creek, Federal-Aid Project BRZ-
1130(2), State Project 8.2280901, T.I.P. No. B-
2626.
Attached for your information are three copies 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. 2734
(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.
If you have any questions or need additional information,
please call Robin Little at 733-3141.
Sincerely,
y C g v
B. J. O`Quinn
Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]

BJO/rml
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Rudolph Scheiner, COE-Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NC DEHNR DEM
Mr. John Parker, NC DEHNR DCM/Permit Coord.
w/out attachment
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, PE, State Highway Engineer- Design
Mr. A.L. Hankins, PE, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith, Jr., PE, Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. D. J. Bowers, PE, Division 3 Engineer
Mr. John L. Williams, Project Manager, P & E Branch
Mr. Davis Moore, P & E Branch
r
If W_

Date: 7/05/94
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-2626
State Project No. 8.2280901
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1130(2)
A. Protect Description: (List project location and scope.
Attach location map.)
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 36 on SR 1130 over Six
Runs Creek in Sampson County. The bridge will be
replaced on the existing location at the same
elevation with a bridge 92 meters (302 feet) long.
The new bridge will have a 7.8-meter (26-foot) clear
deck width. This will provide a 6.6-meter (22-foot)
travelway plus 0.6-meter (2-foot) offsets to each
side. Traffic will be detoured on existing
secondary -roads during construction (see attached
figure). This project (B-2626) will be clustered
with B-1381 due to the proximity of the two projects
(see figure) to reduce the costs and increase the
efficiency of construction.
NOTE: Refer to Section D, "Special Project Information,"
for list of ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS.
B. Purpose and Need: Bridge No. 36 has a sufficiency rating
of 17.6 out of 100 and an estimated remaining life of
less than five years. The bridge is only 5.5 meters
(18.1 feet) wide. NCDOT Bridge Policy calls for a bridge
7.8 meters .(26 feet) wide. The bridge is posted at 6.4
metric tons (7 tons) for both single vehicles and truck-
tractor semi-trailers. For these reasons, Bridge No. 36
needs to be replaced.
C. Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following improvements which
apply to the project:
Type II Improvements
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing,
restoration, rehabilitation, reconstruction, adding
shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g.,
parking, weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and
Reconstructing pavement (3R and 4R
improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding
through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
1
Date: 7/05/94
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge,
auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets,
and drainage pipes, including safety
treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than
one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement
projects including the installation of ramp
metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey
type barriers and pier protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or
upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation
and/or realignment h. Making minor roadway
realignment i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements
including removing hazards and flattening
slopes
k: Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and
motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including
bridge rail retrofit
[3] Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or
replacement or the construction of grade separation
to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing
bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no
red lead paint), scour repair, fender systems,
and minor structural improvements
d. 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.
-W s
i
2
Date: 7/05/94
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 capacity
for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance
facilities in areas used predominantly for
industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing
zoning and where there is no significant noise
impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective
purposes, advance land acquisition loans under
section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a
particular parcel or a limited number of parcels.
These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE
only where the acquisition will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in
alignment for planned construction projects, which
may be required in the NEPA process. No project
development on such land may proceed until the NEPA
process has been completed.
3
Date: 7/05/94
D. Special Project Information:
(Include ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS)
Environmental Commitments:
1. Best Management Practices (BMP) including strict
erosion control measures will be implemented.
2. All bridge replacement work within the stream
channel (in water construction) will be conducted
between September 1 and January l to minimize
impacts to anadromous fish stocks and freshwater
game fish. Any instream construction outside of
this window should be coordinated with Keith W.
Ashley, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) District Fisheries Biologist, at
[phone].
3. The completed structure and roadway approaches will
not obstruct existing public use of the site for
boating access.
4. For those issues not covered in commitments 1-3
above, all standard measures and procedures will be
implemented to avoid or minimize environmental
impacts.
Estimated Costs:
Construction $ 725,000
Right of Way $ 21,000
Total $ 746,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current. - 200 VPD
Year 2015 - 400 VPD
Proposed Typical
Roadway Section 6.6-meter (22-foot) wide travelway
plus 1.2-meter (4-foot) shoulders
Design Speed: 100 km/h (60 mph)
Functional Classification: Rural Local Route
Division Office Comments: The Division Engineer supports
road closure with an offsite detour.
V
r
4

Date: 7/05/94
E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved in the project, the
following evaluation must be completed. If the project
consists only of Type I improvements, the following checklist
does not need to be completed.
ECOLOGICAL
(1) Will the project
on any unique or
(2) Does the project
federally listed
species may occu
(3) Will the project
YES NO
have a substantial impact x
important natural resource?
involve habitat where
X
endangered or threatened F-1
r?
affect anadromous fish? ? X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the
amount of permanent and/or temporary
wetland taking less than one-third x
(1/3) of an acre AND have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland
takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require the use of ? X
U. S. Forest Service lands?
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water
resources be adversely impacted by ? X
proposed construction activities?
(7) Does the project involve waters classified
as Outstanding Water Resources (OWR) and/or ? X
.High Quality Waters (HQW)?
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of
the United States in any of the designated ? X
mountain trout counties?
(9) Does the project involve any known
underground storage tanks (UST's) or ? X
hazardous materials sites?
5
Date: 7/05/94

i
PERMITS AND COORDINATION
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA
county, will the project significantly
affect the coastal zone and/or any "Area
of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier
Resources Act resources?
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be
required?
YES NO
F-1 X
F-1 X
F-1 X
(13) Will the project result in the modification F]
of any existing regulatory floodway?
(14) Will the project require any stream F-1
relocations or channel changes?
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
(15) will the project induce substantial impacts ?
to planned growth or land use for the area?
(16) Will the project require the relocation of F]
any family or business?
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of
right of way, is the amount of right of way
acquisition considered minor?
(18) Will the project involve any changes in
access control?
(19) Will the project substantially alter the
usefulness and/or land use of adjacent
property?
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on
permanent local traffic patterns or
community cohesiveness?
X
F-1
X
X
X
X
F]
X
F-1, X
F-1 X
6
Date: 7/05/94

YES NO
(21) Is the project included in an approved ?
thoroughfare plan and/or Transportation X
Improvement Program (and is, therefore, in
conformance with the Clean Air Act of
1990)?
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an ? X
increase to traffic volumes?
(23) Will traffic be maintained during ?
construction using existing roads, staged X
construction, or on-site detours?
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social,
economic, or environmental grounds F-1 X
concerning the project?
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal, ?
State, and local laws relating to the X
environmental aspects of the action?
CULTURAL RESOURCES
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on
properties eligible for or listed on the ? X
National Register of Historic Places?
(27) Will the project require the use of
Section 4(f) resources (public parks,
recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl X
refuges, historic sites, or historic
bridges, as defined in Section 4(f) of the
U. S. Department of Transportation Act of
1966)?
(28) Will the project involve construction in,
across, or adjacent to a river designated F X
as a component of or proposed for inclusion
in the Natural System of Wild and Scenic
Rivers?
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable
Responses in Part E
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E
should be provided below. Additional supporting
documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
7
1
•
G.
CE Approval
Date: 7/05/94
TIP Project No. B-2626
State Project No. 8.2280901
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1130(2)
Project Description: (List project location and scope.
Attach location map.)
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 36 on SR 1130 over Six
Runs Creek in Sampson County. The bridge will be
replaced on the existing location at the same
elevation with a bridge 92 meters (302 feet) long.
The new bridge will have a 7.8-meter (26-foot) clear
deck width. This will provide a 6.6-meter (22-foot)
travelway plus 0.6-meter (2-foot) offsets to each
side. Traffic will be detoured on existing
secondary roads during construction (see figure).
This project (B-2626) will be clustered with B-1381
due to the proximity of the two projects (see
figure) to reduce the costs and increase the
efficiency of construction.
NOTE: Refer to Section D, "Special Project Information,"
for list of ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
X TYPE II(A)
TYPE II(B)
Approved• '7/
7- S-If-
Date Manager
'Planning & Environmental Branch
7-5-9 9 A y a -//1o //_
Date Projec P nning Unit Head
1_0 -q P i 't ye?l
Date Pro ;A Planning Engineer
For Type II(B) projects only:
/111,q
Date Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
8
w
Q
W N
cm
c:7
W W m
t

o
a )
U
m N
E S?
A 3? zzm Y
E
?o2W ooxw
E- ?.y 0035
E-O Oco W '

m
V)
0 Z a. 00
Sao
3 co E C_
. ?C E
Q
N
O O O

W
F-
0
cr-
0
H
W
0
0
W
H
N
I I p
II_ ??
d,__?
NATURAL SYSTEMS- REPORT
Replacement of Bridge # 36
SR 1130
- 4 m County, North Carolina
ao\ptw > (B-2626)
Prepared for:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
1
Prepared by:
Ecological Consultants
3403 Long Ridge Road
Durham, North Carolina 27703
June 1994
- -, _
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1.0 Introduction ..................................................... 1
1.1 Project Description .......................................... 1
1.2 Purpose ................... ............................... 1
1.3 Methodology ............................................... 1
1.4 Project Area ................................................2
1.5 Physiography and Soils ........................................ 2
2.0 Biotic Resources .................................................. 2
2.1 Plant Communities ........................................... 2
2.2 Anticipated Impacts to Plant Communities ......................... 3
2.3 Wildlife ..... ................................ ...... ..... 4
2.3.1 Terrestrial ............................................4
2.3.2 Aquatic ..............................................4
2.4 Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife .................................. 4
3.0 Water Resources .................................................. 5
3.1 Waters Impacted ............................................ 5
3.2 Best Usage Classification and Water Quality ....................... 5
3.3 Stream Characteristics ........................................ 5
3.4 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources .......................... 6
4.0 Special Topics ................................... ... 6
4.1 Waters of the United States .................................... 6
4. 1.1 Permits ............................................. 6
4.1.2 Mitigation ........................................... 7
4.2 Protected Species ............................................ 7
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species .............................. 7
4.2.2 Federal Candidate Species ............................... 8
4.2.3 State Protected Species ................................. 9
5.0 References ...................................................... 10
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resource Technical Report is submitted to assist in the
preparation of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) document for the project.
1.1 Project Description
Two alternatives are proposed. Alternative 1 is to replace. the bridge at the existing
location with an off-site detour. The replacement bridge structure would be 92 m (301.8 ft) long
and 7 m (24 ft) wide. 1. y
Alternative 2 is to replace the bridge at the existing location with an tempoary
once _
detour bridge to the east of the existing bridge. The replacement bridge structure would be 92 n?
(301.8 ft) long and 7 m (24 ft) wide.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this document is to describe and inventory the natural resources identified
within the project vicinity and estimate potential impacts to these resources. Specifically, the
tasks performed for this study include: 1) an assessment of biological features within the study
corridor including descriptions of vegetation, wildlife, protected species, wetlands, and water
quality; 2) an evaluation of probable impacts resulting from construction; and 3) a preliminary
determination of permit needs.
1.3 Methodoloev
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from the
following sources including: North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM)
water quality classification (Cape Fear River Basin), DEM Point Source Discharge Report for
the Cape Fear River, DEM Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) survey for
the Cape Fear River, U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (USGS) quadrangle map (Ingold, N.C.),
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of protected species, North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program (NC-NHP) data base of uncommon and protected species and unique habitats and aerial
photography (scale 1 : 1200) furnished by the NCDOT. .
Field surveys were conducted along the proposed project alignments on May 1, 1994.
Plant communities likely to be impacted by proposed improvements were walked and visually
observed for significant features. Wildlife was identified using a number of observation
techniques; active searching and capture, visual observations (binocular), and recording
identifying signs of wildlife (sounds, tracks, and burrows). Cursory surveys of the aquatic
habitats were conducted using a long-handled triangular sweep net. °-Organisms captured were
identified and then released. Impact calculations were based on 24 m (80 ft) for Alternative 1
and 18 m (60 ft) for the temporary detour of Alternative 2.

I ,F
.,
d
/'

1.4 Project Area
The proposed project occurs in a rural area of Sampson County (Figure 1). Landuse is
floodplain forests, upland forests and urban/disturbed areas. Floodplain forests are found along
Six Runs Creek. Urban/disturbed areas are limited to land adjacent to the existing bridge and
road.
1.5 Physiography and Soils
Sampson County is located within the Middle and Lower Coastal Plain Province.
Topography is characterized by smooth, gently undulating, plateau-like, seaward sloping lands
in moderate drainage. Elevations in the immediate project area range from 12 m (40 ft) along
the creek bottom to 15 m (50 ft) along the roadside.
The county is underlain primarily by sedimentary rock in Sampson County. Local
changes in subsurface geology are common, and large, homogeneous masses of a single rock
type are rare. Soils in the project vicinity are dominated by the presence of Johnston loams in
the floodplain areas. Johnston loams are poorly drained on narrow to moderately broad flood
plains. Johnston loam is classified as a hydric soil or have hyrdic soils as a major component.
2.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
2.1 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.
Mixed Upland Forest
Mixed Upland Forest are on sloping areas adjacent to SRI 130 composed of a mixture of
hardwoods and a few loblolly pine (Pings taeda). The canopy is composed of sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), loblolly pine, and red maple (Acer rubrum) and blackjack oak
( uercus marilandica). Sub-canopy trees include the canopy species plus American Holley (Ilex
o aca), and hackberry-(Celtis laevigata). The shrub layer is composed of sweetleaf (S =locos
tinctoria), blueberry (Vaccinium =.), and silverling tree (Baccharis halimifolia). A dense herb
layer is composed of multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), greenbrier (Smilax spp.), and poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans).
Floodplain Hardwood Forest
Floodplain Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain Levee Forest) are on level areas adjacent to
Six Runs Creek and in flooded woodlands and cannals adjacent to the existing roadway and is a
mixture of primarily hardwoods. The canopy is composed of sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua}, riverbirch (Betula ni a), water hickory (Carya aquatic a), bittemut hickory :(Carva

t
9 ?
\ forts •-r..+r1
\ VC0, y
'3?
Pmey Grcen
?5 A M
:c
$ al embur.
5
c 1
i ? ?; arre Iz
,x y TomaA)+4 o\.
? a•
I Jr ? \ Ker
J ?? ;.
l
cordiformis), and loblolly pine. Bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) are scattered in flooded
areas along the existing roadway. Sub-canopy trees include the canopy species plus ironwood
(Carpinus caroliniana), cherrybark oak ( uercus falcata var. pagodaefolia), and winged elm
(Ulmus alata). The shrub layer is composed of saplings of red maple, sweetgum, and deerberry
(Vaccinium stamineum). Vines present are greenbrier (Smilax sue.), poison ivy (Toxicodendron
-radicans), and trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans). The herb layer is sparse and includes
pennywort (Obolaria yir inica) and water plantain (Alisma subcordatum) near Six Runs Creek.
Urban/Disturbed
This community classification includes disturbed areas adjacent to roadside margins in
the vicinity of the project. This area is characterized primarily by invasive grasses and herbs
including: fescue grass (Festuca sp), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), grape (Vitis
henbit (Lamium amplexicaule), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), trumpet creeper, ebony
spleenwort (Asplenium 12latyneuron), and greenbriar.
2.2 Anticipated Impacts to Plant Communities
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 construction often does not require the entire right of way and
therefore actual impacts may be less. The following table summarizes potential plant
community impacts which could result from the proposed bridge replacement.
Estimated Impacts to Plant Communities
PLANT COMMUNITIES
Floodplain Hardwood Forest
Mixed Upland Forest
Urban/Disturbed.
ESTIMATED IMPACT
Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Perm. Alt. 2 Temp.
0.16 (0.39) 0.16 (0.39) 0.60(l.48)
0.02 (0.05) 0.02 (0.05) 0.07 (0.18)
0.15 (0.38) 0.15 (0.38) 0.01 (0.03)
TOTAL 0.33 (0.82) 0.33 (0.82) 0.68 (1.69)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Values in hectares (acres); Perm. = Permanent Impacts, Temp. = Temporary Impacts.
Impacts to plant communities as a result of bridge replacement for Alternative 1 are
restricted to narrow strips adjacent to the existing bridge and roadway segments. Bridge and
approach improvements occur primarily within disturbed right-of-way limits and floodplain
hardwood forest edges. Alternative 2 (Permanent and Temporary Impacts) would require
greater encroachment into the floodplain hardwood forest habitat.
3.
A ?a s a
-- ------ ----- ---- -

2.3 Wildlife
2.3.1 Terrestrial
The project area consists of a combination of rural countryside, floodplain forests, upland
forests and urban/disturbed areas along roads. Limited clearing and conversion of tracts of land
for agricultural and residential uses has eliminated some cover and protection for many
indigenous wildlife species nearby the project area. The remaining natural plant communities in
the area, particularly the forested area and adjacent to Six Runs Creek and associated ecotomes,
do serve as valuable habitat. The forest bordering Six Runs Creek 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 Virginia
opossum (Didelphis yirginiana), mink (Mustela vison) and white=tailed deer (Odocoileus
vir inianus). _
The observed bird species are typical of a rural setting where a patchwork of habitat
types are available. Species encountered above and nearby Six Runs Creek include Crows
(Corvus brachyrhynchos), Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), and wood thrush
(Hylocichla mustelina).
Reptiles and amphibians typical of these communities include the eastern garter snake
(Thamnophis sirtalis), Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis}, eastern box turtle (Terrapene
Carolina), and Fowler's Toad (Bufo woodhousei).
2.3.2 Aquatic
Six Rans Creek supports aquatic invertebrates and several species of fish. A mussel
(Ellipto complanata) was found along the banks of Six Runs Creek. Six Runs Creek supports
aquatic invertebrates and several species of fish. Game fish species present are redbreast sunfish
(Lepomis auritus), redfin pickerel (Esox americanus americanus), catfish (Ictalurus spy.),
warmouth (Chaenobr, tus losus) and sucker (Moxostoma spy.).
The creek and adjacent banks also provide suitable benthic and riparian habitat for
amphibians and aquatic reptiles such as the eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), northern
dusky salamander (Desmo athus fuscus), frogs (Rana sue,.), snapping turtles (Chel,ydra
serpentina) and several snake species. .
2.4 Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife
Alternative 1 habitat affected by the proposed action include Urban/Disturbed and
Floodplain Hardwood Forested areas. Alternative 2 would receive the greatest impact by
requiring a tempoary detour and conversion of more of the Floodplain Hardwood Forest habitat
which provides excellent habitat for a diversity of plants and animals. Alternative 1 requires less
disturbances in the Floodplain Hardwood Forest areas. The Urban/Disturbed area is utilized by
4
14
nm?
opportunistic plant species such as greenbriar and Japanese honeysuckle and mobile species such
as rodents, lizards and snakes that can recover quickly from construction impacts.
The proposed action can potentially have substantial affects on the aquatic ecosystem
unless strict sediment control measures are taken. The disturbance of the creek 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.
3.0 WATER RESOURCES
3.1 Waters Impacted
Bridge #36 crosses Six Runs Creek approximately 610 m (2000 ft) upstream from the
confluence with the Great Coharie River into the Black River. The Black River is part of the
Cape Fear River Basin.
3.2.1 Best Usase Classification and Water Oualit
. 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 (DEM 1993).
Six Runs Creek is class C Sw, indicating waters which are suitable 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.
The DEM National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) reports no
dischargers within 6.4 km (four miles) upstream of the proposed crossing.
No High Quality Waters (HQW), Anadromous Fish Spawning Areas, Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW), WS I or WS II Waters occur within 1.6 km (1 mile) of the project site.
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 subtile 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.
Six Runs Creek was sampled (October 1989) by BMAN at the the project crossing and given a
rating of Excellent.
3.1'.2 Stream Characteristics
Six Runs Creek originates in northern Sampson County approximately 48 km (30 miles)
above the subject bridge. The stream was approximately 21 m (70 ft) in width below the
existing bridge. Depth varied from approximately 30 cm (1 ft) to 91 cm (3 ft). During field
investigations the main body of the channel was bridged. Surface flow was slow below the
5 -

J?J

_?
;

bridge. Substrate was sand and sand bars along the creek channel. The water was clear with an
orange tint.
3.2 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Short term impacts to water quality can be anticipated from construction-related
activities, which may increase sedimentation and turbidity. Impacts can 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 surfaces will be partially mitigated by providing for vegetated
road shoulders and limited use of ditching where ever possible.
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS
4.1 Waters of the United States
1
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the bro ategory of "Waters of the-United
States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3, in accordance wit ovisions of Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters and wet ds will be impacted by project
construction. Approximately 0.15 hectares (0.36 acres) for Alternative 1, or 0.32 hectares (0.78
acres) for Alternative 2, of Palustrine forested deciduous wetlands (see-Cowardin et al. 1979)
will be impacted (filled) with the current project design.
Wetland communities were identified using the criteria specified in the 1,987 "US Army
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual". For an area to be considered a "wetland",
the following three specifications must be meet; 1) presence of hydric soils (low soil chroma
values), 2) presence of hydrophytic vegetation, and 3) evidence of hydrology at or near the soil
surface for a portion (12.5 percent or greater duration) of the growing season.
4. 1.1 Permits
Section 404 impacts to wetlands will occur. A Nationwide Permit 33 -CFR 330.5(A)23,
for impacts to surface waters of Six Runs Creek, is likely to be applicable if the WRC certifies
that construction of this project will not adversely affect these waters. This permit authorizes
activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or in part, by
another Federal agency or department. That agency or department has determined that the
activity is categorically excluded from the environmental documentation, because it will neither
individually or cumulatively have a significant environmental effect.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 (1665)
Water Quality General Certification is also required prior to issuance of the Nationwide Permit.
6

4.1.2 Mitigation
Projects authorized under Nationwide Permits usually do not require compensatory
mitigation according to the 1389 Memorandum Agreement between the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Department of the Army. However, utilization of best management
practices (BMP's) is recommended in an effort to minimize impacts.
4.2 Protected Species
4.2.1 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. The following federally protected species are listed for Sampson
County:
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia) - E
Brief descriptions of these organisms characteristics and habitat requirements are
provided 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 cm long with a wing span ranging from 35 to 38 cm. 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 alp ustris) 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 alternatives. Also, a review of
NC 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.
7
7 - 77
Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia)
Status: E
Family: Lauraceae
Listed: 7/31/86
Pondberry is known from three populations in North Carolina with one being from a dry
pond depression in Sampson County near Roseboro. Pondberry is a deciduous shrub which
grows to 2 m (6 ft) tall, and spreads vegetatively by stolons. Pale yellow flowers appear in the
spring before leaves. Pondberry, for the most part, 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 more coastal sites. The plants generally grow in shaded areas but may also be
found in full sun. Habitat for this species exists in the proposed project alignment.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
A plant-by-plant survey was conducted on May 1, 1994, to determine if Pondberry was
present in suitable habitat associated within the project Right-of-Way (ROW). No pondberry
was found along the project ROW. Also, a review of NC Natural Heritage Program data
revealed no records of this species in the subject project study area. It can be concluded that the
subject project will not impact pondberry.
4.2.2 Federal Candidate Species
There are eight C2 and one CI federal candidate species listed for Johnston County. The
North Carolina status of these species is listed below.
Federal Candidate Species Sampson County
Scientific Name
Common Name Habitat NC
Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow No SC
Rana areolata i aj ito Carolina crawfish frog Yes SC
Dolania americana Amer. sandburring mayfly Yes SR
Cylindrocolea andersoni (C1) A Liverwort Yes C
Dionaea muscipula Venus flytrap Yes C-SC
Litsea aestivalis Pondspice Yes C
Macbridea caroliniana Carolina bogmint Yes C
Sporobolus teretifolius Wireleaf dropseed No T
Solidauo versa Spring-flowering goldenrod Yes E
NC Status: SC, E, T, SR and C denote Special Concern, Endangered, Threatened, Significantly
Rare 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
8
.. t
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.
4.2.3 State Protected 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.). NC Natural Heritage Program records indicate no known populations of the state
listed species occurring within 1.6 km (1 mile) of the project site. However, NC Natural
Heritage Program records indicate the eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata) was found in
August 1991, approximately 3.2 km (2 miles) downstream of the proposed project site at the SR
1003 crossing of Six Runs Creek. There is also a record for the pod lance (Elliptio folliculata) in
the,Coharie Creek.
9
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, Technical
Report Y-87-1, USACOEWES, Vicksburg, Miss.
Gibbs, L.C. 1987. Weeds of the Southern United States. Univ. of Georgia College of
Agriculture.
Lee, D.S., J.B: Funderburg, Jr. and M.K. Clark. 1982. A Distribution Survey of North Carolina
Mammals. Museum of Natural History, North Carolina.
LeGrand, H.E. and S.P. Hall. 1993. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species
of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, J. Z. Harrison, III, and J. Dermid. 1986. Amlhibians
and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia, The University of North Carolina Press.
Murie, O.J. 1975. A Field Guide to Animal Tracks. Houghton Miffin Co., Boston.
NCDNRCD. 1993. Classifications and Water Quality Standards Assigned to the Water of the
Cape Fear River Basin. Division of Environment Management, Raleigh, N.C..
Peterson, R.T. 1980. A Field Guide to the Birds. Houghton Miffin Co., Boston.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Jeulings. 1986. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of
North Carolina Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina. Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, N.C.
SCS. 1985. Soil Survey of Sampson County. North Carolina. Soil Conservation Service.
Weakley, A.S. 1993. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina.
. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr.. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas. Virginia
and Maryland, The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, N.C.
10
r' -41
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
P - ZU -^-:?
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.

FROM
: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
?
?
J
.J okn
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE -
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
3
?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA L-VI
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
August 24, 1993

AUG 3 1 1993
P
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager ,
Planning and Environmental Branc
91
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheet for Bridge No. 36 on SR 1130 in
Sampson County over Six Runs Creek, B-2626
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets 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 project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for October 5, 1993 at 10:00 A. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call John Williams, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
JW/pl r
Attachment

- Ce Z:3
C ls.i /?- A-Z
7 ors

1%

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE -9/21/23 REVISION DATE
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING
PLANNING
DESIGN
TIP PROJECT B-2626
STATE PROJECT 8.2280901
F.A. PROJECT BRZ-1130 (2)
DIVISION 3
COUNTY Sampson
ROUTE SR 1130
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: SR 1130, Bridge ##36, Sampson County
Replace bridge over Six Runs Creek

METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE
2. EXISTING LOCATION - ONSITE DETOUR
3. RELOCATION
4. OTHER
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ($) 1 W

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
4400
TRAFFIC: CURRENT VPD; DESIGN YEEAAR3r„ 3
VPD
TTST ?I DT 7 %
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION:
EXISTING STRUCTURE:11??NGTH 85.7 METERS; WIDTH 5.2 METERS
281 FEET 17.2 FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH METERS; WIDTH METERS
OR FEET FEET
CULVERT -
DETOUR STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH METERS; WIDTH METERS
FEET FEET
OR
PIPE - SIZE MILLIMETERS
INCHES
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES) ..................... $
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES,
AND ACQUISITION) ................... $
FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS ................ ................. $
TOTAL COST .......................................$
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ................................ $600,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 18,000
SUB TOTAL ....................................... $618,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ................................ $
TIP TOTAL COST ...................................$618,000
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Rural Local Route
PREPARED BY: John L. Williams
DATE: 8/24/93
?I
" NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
SAMPSON COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 36
ON SR 1130 OVER SIX RUNS CREEK
B - 2626
0 mile 1
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
)z? 1-5- 93
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.

FROM:
1(
A REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
t ` r/
11
t
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
?a r m ?
wR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
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
December 13, 1993
D
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: John L. Williams
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 36 on SR 1130 over
Six Runs Creek, Sampson County,
B-2626, State Project 8.2280901,
F. A. Project BRZ 1130(2)
A scoping meeting for the subject bridge was held on October 5, 1993 at
10:00 AM in Room 470 of the Planning and Environmental Branch.
The following people were in attendance:
Kevin Bisby Traffic Control
Sue Flowers Roadway Design
Lee McCrory Roadway Design
Eric Galamb Div. of Environmental Management
Danny Rogers Program Development
Robin Stancil SHPO
Betty C. Yancey Right of Way
Jerry Snead Hydraulics Unit
Wayne Fedora Planning & Environmental Branch
John Williams Planning & Environmental Branch
Attached are the revised scoping sheets which include additional
information provided at the scoping meeting.
Robin Stancil of the SHPO commented that the project area contains no
recorded historic structures. However, there is an prehistoric
archaeological site (31SP33) recorded in a 1970 survey of the area. She
stated that if additional right of way was required for the project, that an
archaeological survey would be required.
The existing roadway has a statutory 55 mph speed limit. Thus the
project should have design speed of 60 mph if possible.

December 13, 1993
Page 2
Eric Galamb of DEM stated that the waters were Class C-Swamp Water and
normal erosion control measures should be observed. He also indicated that
wetland impacts should be checked for.
The Hydraulics Unit recommends replacing the existing bridge with a
bridge 92 m (301.8 feet)in length at the same location and elevation as the
existing bridge. Hydraulics has also noted that the bridge should be widened
to the east. This widening may require the relocation of a minor drainage
ditch running parallel to the existing roadway.
NCDOT Bridge Policy indicates that a 7.31 m (24.0 ft.) bridge width is
required including a 6.1 m (20.0 ft.) travelway with 0.6 m (2.0 ft.)
shoulders.
A list of alternatives to be studied, with associated preliminary
construction costs, are as follows:
Alternate 1 - Replace the bridge with a new bridge in its existing
location. Traffic would be detoured along existing
secondary roads during construction.
Alternate 2 - Replace the bridge with a new bridge in its existing
location. Traffic would be maintained during
construction by providing a temporary on-site
detour.
Attachment
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TIP PROJECT B-2626
STATE PROJECT 8.2280901
F.A. PROJECT BRZ-1130 (2)
DIVISION 3
COUNTY Sampson
ROUTE SR 1130
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: SR 1130, Bridge #36, Sampson County
Replace bridge over Six Runs Creek
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE
2. EXISTING LOCATION - ONSITE DETOUR
3. RELOCATION
4. OTHER
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES' NO X
DATE 12/08/93
REVISION DATE
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING
PLANNING
DESIGN
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ($) 1 W
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 200 VPD; DESIGN YEAR 400 VPD
TTST 1 % DT 2 %
TYPnCAL ROADWAY SECTION:
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 85.7 METERS; WIDTH 5.2 METERS
281 FEET 17.2 FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH 92 METERS; WIDTH 7.31 METERS
301.8 FEET 24 FEET
OR
CULVERT -
DETOUR STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH METERS; WIDTH METERS
FEET FEET
OR
PIPE - SIZE MILLIMETERS
INCHES
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES) ..................... $
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES,
AND ACQUISITION) ................... $
FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS .................................. $
TOTAL COST ....................................... $
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ................................ $600,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 18,000
SUB TOTAL ....................................... $618,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ................................ $
TIP TOTAL COST ...................................$618,000
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Rural Local Route