19950970 Ver 1_Complete File_19950911

,.a STAT[
?-„yam
C) -7 6
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF 1AANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT Ill
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
September 9, 1995
Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
..?.- SEP I 1 10
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890 WETLANDS GRt
'VATEH uaLrry
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Scotland and Robeson Counties, Replacement of Bridge No. 32 over Lumber
River on SR 1433 and SR 1310. TIP No. B-2866, State Project No. 8.2590201,
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1433(1).
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning report for the subject project. The
project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a programmatic "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 Water Quality Certification No. 2745 (Categorical Exclusion) will
apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management,
for their review.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr Gordon Cashin at
[phone], Extension 315.
Sin
/in?'Vl4ick, an ager
Manager
GEC/plr Planning and Environmental Branch
Attachments
cc: Mr. Michael Hosey, COE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCEHNR, DEM
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. F. E. Whitesell, PE, Division 8 Engineer
Mr. W. F. Rosser, PE, Division 6 Engineer
Ms. Stacy Baldwin, Project Planning Engineer

Scotland and Robeson Counties
SR 1433 and SR 1310
Bridge No. 32 Over Lumber River
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-1433(1)
State Project 8.2590201
T.I.P. No. B-2866
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) AND APPROVAL
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
A E H. Franklin Vick PE Manager
?-Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
S' s s c
DATE Nicho . Graf, PE
Pt4zDivision Administrator, FHWA
4&
Scotland and Robeson Counties
SR 1433 and SR 1310
Bridge No. 32 Over Lumber River
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-1433(1)
State Project 8.2590201
T.I.P. No. B-2866
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(0 AND APPROVAL
July 1995
I I I 1 Ito ,,,.
.?•????H CAR l'••,,
i
.........
;? ?'; • F ESS/p'••?9 '•;
N?
Documentation Prepared By:
MA Engineering Consultants, Inc. SEAL
19732
.
S •???NEE. R-
.....•• 'J •
52
I,CHEN ? 110
Shihchen (David) Fuh, Ph.D, PE
Project Manager
for North Carolina Department of Transportation
J.A. Bissett, Jr., PE, Unit Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
C
Stacy Y. B dwi
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
A
Scotland and Robeson Counties
SR 1433 and SR 1310
Bridge No. 32 Over Lumber River
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-1433(1)
State Project 8.2590201
T.I.P. No. B-2866
I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
An earthen structure will be placed at the site for the collection of potential hazardous waste spills
adjacent to the bridge.
Sediment curtains and coffer dams will be used to minimize sedimentation into the river if bridge piers
are removed during construction activities.
All standard procedures and measures, including Best Management Practices, will be implemented
to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
Measures to mitigate the adverse effect to Bridge No. 32 shall include:
At least one span shall be kept open at all times for pleasure boaters who use this
section of the Lumber River.
The locations of the new bridge piers shall be designed as much as possible so as not
to obstruct river traffic.
3. NCDOT shall install a sign just upstream and downstream of the bridge noting bridge
construction is underway.

Scotland and Robeson Counties
SR 1433 and SR 1310
Bridge No. 32 Over Lumber River
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-1433(1)
State Project 8.2590201
T.I.P. No. B-2866
Bridge No. 32 is included in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location is shown
in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a
Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
For the Summary of Environmental Commitments, see page i.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 32 will be replaced at the existing location as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure 2. The
recommended replacement structure consists of a bridge 87 meters (285 feet) long and 9.2 meters
(30 feet) wide. This structure will provide two 3.6-meter (12-foot) travel lanes with 1.0-meter (3-
foot) shoulders on each side.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing grade at this
location.
The existing roadway will be widened to a 7.2-meter (24-foot) pavement width, to provide two 3.6-
meter (12-foot) travel lanes, and 2.4-meter (8-foot) unpaved shoulders on each side throughout the
project limits.
A temporary off-site detour (see Figure 2A) will be-used to maintain traffic during the construction
period.
Estimated cost, based on current prices, is $953,900. The estimated cost of the project, as shown
in the 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program, is $635,000 ($600,000-construction;
$3 5,000-right-of-way).

III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located in the southwestern portion of Robeson and Scotland County, approximately
10 kilometers (6 miles) east of Laurinburg, North Carolina (see Figure 1). The area is rural
woodlands in nature.
SR 1433 is classified as a rural major collector in the Statewide Functional Classification System and
is a Federal-Aid Highway. This route is not a designated bicycle route.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1433 has an 5.5-meter (18-foot) pavement width with 1.2-meter (4-
foot) shoulders (see Figures 3 and 4). The roadway grade is relatively flat through the project area.
The existing bridge is located on tangent which extends approximately 60 meters (200 feet) north and
120 meters (400 feet) south from the structure. The roadway is situated approximately 6.4 meters
(21 feet) above the river bed.
The current traffic volume of 2300 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to 3700 VPD by
the year 2018. The projected volume includes I% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 2% dual-
tired vehicles (DT). There is no posted speed limit through the project area, therefore, the speed limit
is assumed to be the statewide maximum of 90 kilometers per hour (55 miles per hour).
Bridge No. 32 is a six-span structure that consists of a steel plank deck on steel I-beams. The
substructure consists of timber caps on timber piles. The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was
constructed in 1950.
The overall length of the structure is 73 meters (240 feet). The clear roadway width is 7.1 meters
(23.3 feet). The posted weight limit on this bridge is 13 metric tons (15 tons) for single vehicles and
16 metric tons (18 tons) for TTST's.
Bridge No. 32 has a sufficiency rating of 13.3, compared to a rating of 100 for anew structure. The
existing bridge is considered structurally deficient.
There are no utilities attached to the existing structure. However, overhead power lines parallel the
existing bridge on the downstream side of the roadway throughout the project area. Utility impacts
are anticipated to be low.
No accidents have been reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 32 during the period from April 1991
to March 1994.
There is no school bus traffic crossing this bridge.
2

IV. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 32 were studied. Each alternative consists of a bridge 87
meters (285 feet) long and 9.2 meters (30 feet) wide. Typical sections of the approach roadway and
structure are included as Figures 4 and 5.
The alternatives studied are shown on Figure 2 and are as follows:
Alternative I (Recommended) - involves replacement of the structure along the existing roadway
alignment. Improvements to the approach roadways will be required for approximately 60 meters
(200 feet) in each direction from the bridge. A temporary off-site detour will be provided during the
construction period. The off-site detour will be 12.9 kilometers (8.0 miles) in length (see Figure 2A).
The design speed for this alternative is 100 kilometers per hour (60 miles per hour). Alternative 1
is recommended because it is less costly and has less impact on the wetland environment due to the
additional roadway approach work for Alternative 2.
Alternative 2 - involves replacement of the structure along the existing roadway alignment.
Improvements to the approach roadways will be required for approximately 60 meters (200 feet) in
each direction from the bridge. A temporary on-site detour will be provided during the construction
period west (upstream) of the existing structure. The temporary detour will consist of a bridge 70
meters (230 feet) long and 7.2 meters (24 feet) wide, located about 12 meters (40 feet) west of the
existing structure. The design speed of this alternative is 100 kilometers per hour (60 miles per hour).
This alternative is not recommended because of the wetlands that would be impacted on both sides
of the temporary detour.
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not acceptable
due to the traffic service provided by SR 1433.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation Division 8 concurs that an off site detour will be
the best alternative during bridge replacement.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.

V. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the two alternatives are as follows:
(Recommended)
Alternative 2
Alternative 1
Structure $ 678,600 $ 678,600
Roadway Approaches 83,400 83,400
Detour Structure and Approaches 0 535,000
Structural Removal 43,000 43,000
Engineering and Contingencies 120,000 210,000
Right-of-Wa /Construction Easements/Utilities 28,900 37,700
Total $953,900 $1,587,700
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 32 will be replaced at its existing location, as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure 2, with a
new structure having a length of approximately 87 meters (285 feet). Improvements to the existing
approaches will be necessary for a distance of about 60 meters (200 feet) in each direction from the
bridge. The Division Engineer concurs with this recommended alternative.
A 7.2-meter (24-foot) pavement width with 2.4-meter (8-foot) shoulders on each side will be
provided on the approaches (see Figure 4). A 9.2-meter (30-foot) clear width is recommended on
the replacement structure in accordance with the current North Carolina Department of
Transportation Bridge Policy. SR 1433 is classified as a rural major collector; therefore, criteria for
a rural major collector was used for the bridge replacement. This will provide a 7.2-meter (24-foot)
travelway with 1.0-meter (3-foot) shoulders across the structure. The design speed is 100 kilometers
per hour (60 miles per hour).
During the construction period, maintenance of traffic off-site is acceptable because of low traffic
volumes using SR 1433 and the short length of additional travel required along existing secondary
roads. Additionally, wetlands would be impacted by the construction of a temporary on-site detour.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, the new structure is recommended to have a length of
approximately 87 meters (285 feet). The bridge will have a 0.3% minimum slope in order to facilitate
drainage. Tile elevation of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing bridge
so that there will be no increase to the existing 100-year floodplain elevation. The length and height
of the new structure may be increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as
determined by further hydrologic studies.
4

VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
A biologist visited the project site on October 20, 1994 to verify documented information and gather
field data for a thorough assessment of potential impacts that could be incurred by a proposed bridge
replacement project.
The investigation examined the vegetation surrounding the highway bridge in order to: 1) search for
State and federally protected plants and animal species; 2) identify unique or prime-quality
communities; 3) describe the current vegetation and wildlife habitats; 4) identify wetlands; and 5)
provide information to assess (and minimize adverse) environmental effects of the proposed bridge
replacement.
Biotic Communities
Plant Communities
Three distinct plant community types occur within the immediate area of the proposed project. A
Cypress-Gum Swamp community grades into a Coastal Plain Levee Forest, and are included below
as floodplain hardwood forest. Specific communities exhibited slight variation dependent upon
location and physical characteristics of the site (soils, topography, human uses, etc.). Communities
are described below.
Floodplain Hardwood Forest:
The Floodplain Hardwood Wetland Forest (Cypress-Gum Swamp, blackwater subtype grades into
Coastal Plain Levee Forest, blackwater subtype) is on level areas adjacent to SR 1433 and is
composed primarily of hardwoods. Much of this area is standing water. The canopy adjacent to the
Lumber River is composed of bald cypress (Taxodiumr distichum) and tupelo gum (Nyssa aqualica).
Other canopy species include sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), and
water oak (Ouercus nigra). Sub-canopy trees include the canopy species plus loblolly bay (Gordonia
lasianthus), American holly (Ilex opaca), and sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana). The shrub/sapling
layer is composed of Carolina ash (Fraxinus caroliniana), sweetgum, raspberry (Rubus spp.),
blackhaw (Viburmmr prunifolium), and blueberry (Vaccinium spp.). The vine/herb/grass layer is
composed of cane (Arundinaria gigantea), grape (Vitis spp.), and greenbrier (Smilax spp.). Manna
grass (Glyceria spp.) and spatter-dock (Nuphar hiteum) are present along the swamp channel
margins.
Urban/Disturbed:
This community classification includes disturbed bridge and roadside margins, and powerline right-of-
way in the vicinity of the project. This area is characterized primarily by invasive grasses, vines and
herbs including: poison ivy (Toxicodendroit radicans), fescue grass (Festuca spp.), Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), greenbrier, trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), aster (Aster spp.),
5

violet (Viola spp.), broomsedge (Andropogoir spp.), and goldenrod (Solidago spp.). The subcanopy
is sparse and composed of honey locust (Gleditsia u acanthos) while the shrub layer is composed
of raspberry and privet (Ligustrum sinense).
Wildlife (General)
Terrestrial:
The project area consists of primarily roadside urban/disturbed and forested areas. The forested areas
provide cover and protection for many indigenous wildlife species nearby the project area. The
forested areas adjacent to the Lumber River and associated ecotones serve as valuable habitat. The
forest bordering the Lumber River has all the necessary components (food, water, protective cover)
for mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians.
Sighting or evidence (tracks, scat, burrows, nests, etc.) were noted for the following species of
mammals including striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), and
gray squirrel (Schwus carolinensis). Mammals likely to inhabit the area include opossum (Dipelphis
marsupiallis), eastern mole (scalopus aquaticus), longtail weasel (Mustela fi-enata), raccoon
(Procyoir lotoi) and mice (Peromyscus spp.).
The observed bird species are typical of rural setting where a patchwork of habitat types are available.
Species encountered nearby the Lumber River include green-winged teal (Arias crecca) and four
muscovy (Cairina moschata). Muscovy birds included both domestic and ancestral forms.
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 ii,oodhousei).
Aquatic:
The Lumber River supports aquatic invertebrates and several species of fish for recreational fishing.
Game species present are redbreast sunfish (Lepomis ain-itus), redfin pickerel (Esox aniericanus),
catfish (Ictalurus spp.), redhorse sucker (Moxosioma spp.), and warmouth (Chaenobryttus gulosus).
The river 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
(Desniognathus fnscus), frogs (Rana spp.), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), corn snake
(Elaphe guttata), and rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta).
6

Physical Resources
Soil
Robeson and Scotland Counties are located within the Middle Coastal Plain and have gently
undulating, plateau-like, seaward sloping uplands, and gentle to steep valley slopes. Elevations in the
immediate project area range from 64 meters (210 feet) along the river bottom to 67 meters (220
feet) along the roadside.
The parent materials of the soils of Robeson and Scotland Counties are unconsolidated rock material,
sand and silt, and clay that make up the sediments of the Middle Coastal Plain. Local changes in
subsurface geology are common, and large, homogeneous masses of a single rock type are rare.
Soils in the project vicinity are Bibb and Swamp soils. Bibb soils are nearly level, poorly drained soils
found on floodplains. Swamp soils are very poorly drained soils occurring in stream channels which
are frequently flooded for long periods. Bibb and Swamp soils have map units that are hydric soils
or have hydric soils as a major component.
Water
Bridge No. 32 crosses the Lumber River approximately 32 km (20 mi) downstream from its meeting
of Horse, Naked, and Downing Creeks. The Lumber River drains south into the Little Pee Dee River
in South Carolina. The Lumber River and subsequent receptor systems are part of the Lumber River
Basin. The Lumber River is a liquid park and is designated as a State Natural and Scenic River at the
project study area.
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin (NCDNRCD 1993).
The Lumber River is Class WS-IV Sw HQW, indicating waters protected as water supplies which
are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds, and a supplemental classification for
swamp waters; waters which have low velocities and other natural characteristics which are different
from adjacent streams, and a supplemental classification for HQW; High Quality Waters which are
waters that are rated as excellent based on biological and physical/chemical characteristics through
division monitoring or special studies.
The Lumber River is designated as a High Quality Water (HQW) at the project site. A raw water
supply intake for the Robeson County Water supply is approximately 3.2 kilometers (2 miles)
downstream of the project site. No Anadromous Fish Spawning Areas occur within 1.6 kilometers
(1 mile) of the project site.
The North Carolina Divisn of Environmental Management (DEM) National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) report one discharger (J.P. Stevens Company/Wagram Complex)
within 6.4 kilometers (4 miles) upstream of the proposed crossing.
7
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long term trends in water
quality at fixed monitoring sites by the sampling for benthic macro invertebrates. Certain organisms
are sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality. Good water quality is associated with high taxa
richness (the number of different types of organisms) and the presence of many intolerant species.
Water quality degradation gradually eliminates the more sensitive species and leads to a community
structure quite different from that in an unstressed waterbody. The Lumber River was sampled at the
proposed project site (October 1985 and July 1986) by BMAN and given a bioclassification rating
of Excellent.
Table 1 describes the stream characteristics of Lumber River observed in the vicinity of the proposed
bridge replacement project.
TABLE- 1
Stream Characteristics and Ecolop-ical Classifications
Characteristic Description
Substrate Muck
Current Flow Slow
Channel Width 27 meters (90 feet)
Water Depth 30 centimeters (1 foot) to 1.2 meters (4 feet)
Water Color Black
Water Odor None
Aquatic Vegetation Manna grass, spatter-dock
Adjacent Vegetation Bald cypress, tupelo gum, sweetgum, red maple,
water oak
Wetlands Palustrine Forested
Jurisdictional Topics
Wetlands
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States" as defined
in Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 328.3, in accordance with provisions of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters and wetlands will be impacted by
project construction. Approximately 0.12 hectares (0.29 acres) of Palustrine forested deciduous
wetlands (see Cowardin et al. 1979) will be impacted (filled) by the construction of the recommended
alternative. Field observations indicated wetlands were associated with low-lying land adjacent to the
bridge. Standing water was observed near the roadway embankment along both sides of the approach
roadway.
Wetland communities were identified using the criteria specified in the 1987 "US Army Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual". For an area to be considered a "wetland", the following
three specifications must be met: 1) presence of hydric soils (low soil chroma values); 2) presence
ofhydrophytic vegetation; and 3) evidence of hydrology at or near the soil surface for a portion (5
percent or greater duration) of the growing season.
Protected Species
Federally Protected Species:
Species with federal classifications of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) are protected under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (1978, 1979, 1982, and 1988 Amendments).
Candidate species do not receive protection under the Act, but are mentioned due to potential
vulnerability. Table 2 lists the federally protected species for Robeson and Scotland Counties as of
March 28, 1995.
TABLE 2
Federallv Protected Species for Robeson and Scotland Counties
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E
Michaux's sumac Rhus micliauxii E
Rough-leaved loosestrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia E
American chaflseed Schu,albea americaiia E
Canby's dropwort Oxypolis canbyi E
Brief descriptions of each species' characteristics, habitat requirements, and relationship to the
proposed project are discussed below.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides baa-ealis)
Status: E
Family: Picidae
Listed: 10/13/70
This federally Endangered woodpecker is found in scattered locations throughout the southeast. The
bird measures 18 to 20 centimeters long with a wing span ranging from 35 to 38 centimeters. The
male has a small red spot on each side of the head. Both males and females show a black cap and
stripe on the side of the neck. The throat is also black while the cheeks and under parts are white.
Black and white horizontal stripes are visible on the back. Nesting habitat consists of open pine
stands (minimum age 60 years) or mixed pine/hardwood stands, (50 percent or more pine). Longleaf
pine (Phnispalusiris) is most commonly used, but other species of southern pine are also acceptable.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat exists along the bridge replacement alternative. Also, a review of North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the subject project study area.
It can be concluded that project construction will have no impact on the Red-cockaded woodpecker.
9
Michaux's sumac (Rhos michauxii)
Status: E
Family: Anacardiacene
Listed: 9/28/89
Michaux's sumac was known historically from the inner coastal plain and lower piedmont of North
Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. Thirty-five populations have been reported in North Carolina.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. It is dependent on some sort of disturbance to
maintain the openness of its habitat. It grows only in open habitat where it can get full sunlight and
it does not compete well with other species such as Japanese honeysuckle.
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub that grows 0.2 to 1.0 meters in height.
The narrowly winged or wingless rachis supports 9 to 13 sessile, oblong to oblong-lanceolate leaflets
that are each 4 to 9 centimeters long, 2 to 5 centimeters wide, acute and acuminate. It bears small
flowers in a terminal, erect, dense cluster. The flowers are greenish to white in color. Fruits, which
develop from August to September on female plants, are a red densely short-pubescent drupe, 5 to
6 millimeters across.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The disturbed roadside area along the project offers suitable habitat for this species. Plant by plant
surveys along this area were conducted on October 20, 1994. No plants were observed. Also, a
review of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the
subject project study area. It can be concluded that project construction will have no impact on the
Michaux's sumac.
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulacfolia)
Status: E
Family: Primulaceae
Listed: 6/12/87
Rough-leaved loosestrife is a perennial herb that grows slender stems from a rhizome and reaches
heights of 3 to 6 decimeters. Whorls of 3 to 4 leaves encircle the stem at intervals-beneath the showy
yellow flowers. Flowering occurs from mid-May through June, with fruits present from July through
October. Habitat occurs in the ecotones or edges between longleaf pine uplands and pond pine
pocosins (areas of dense shrub and vine growth) usually on a wet, peaty, poorly drained soil, on moist
to seasonally saturated sands, and on shallow organic soils overlaying sand.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The disturbed roadside area along the project offers suitable habitat for this species. Plant by plant
surveys along the disturbed areas were conducted on October 20, 1994. No plants or fruits for the
species were observed. Also, a review of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program data revealed
10
no records of this species in the subject project study area. It can be concluded that construction of
this project will not impact this species.
American chaffseed (Schiff albea americana)
Status: E
Family: Scrophulariaceae
Listed: 10/29/92
American chaffseed is a finely pubescent (to tomentose, unbranched) perennial herb reaching 3-8
decimeters tall. The leaves are alternate, sessile, entire, elliptical-lanceolate (to elliptic-oval) 2-5 cm
long and approximately 1 centimeter wide. Flowering occurs in spring and fruits in early summer.
Habitat is moist to dry sandy pinelands and oaklands; especially in seasonally wet pine savannas and
pine woodlands.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The woodlands areas along the project offers suitable habitat for this species. Plant by plant surveys
along the forested woodlands were conducted on October 20, 1994. No plants were observed. Also,
a review of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the
subject project study area. It can be concluded that construction of this project will not impact this
species.
Canby's dropwort (Ox)y)olis canbyi)
Status: E
Family: Apiaceae
Listed: 2/25/91
Canby's dropwort is a perennial plant 0.8 to 1.2 meters tall. Its leaves are quill-like and bear
compound umbels of small flowers. These five-parted flowers have white petals and pale green
sepals, some of which are tinged with red. The plant has a slight dill fragrance. The flowers are
borne from May through early August. The fruit is a strongly winged schizocarp. Canby's dropwort
grows in coastal plain habitats including wet meadows, wet pineland savannas, ditches, sloughs, and
around the edges of Cypress-pine ponds.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The woodlands areas along the project offers suitable habitat for this species. Plant by plant surveys
along the forested woodlands were conducted on October 20, 1994. No plants or fruits for the
species were observed. Also, a review of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program data revealed
no records of this species in the subject project study area. It can be concluded that construction of
this project will not impact this species.
11
Federal Candidate Species:
There are 23 C2, federal candidate species listed for Robeson and Scotland Counties. The North
Carolina status of these species is listed in Table 3.
TABLE 3
Federal Candidate Species Robeson and Scotland Counties
Common Name Scientific Name Suitable NC
Habitat Status
Rafinesque's big-cared bat Plecolus rafinesquii No SC
Bachman's sparrow Airnophila aeslivalis Yes SC
Northern pine snake Piluophis in. nnelanoleucus Yes SC
Carolina crawfish frog Rana areolata capilo Yes SC
Georgia leadplant :Innorphageongionageorgiana Yes E
Sandhills milkvetch Aslragalus nniclnrurxii Yes C
Pine barrens boneset Eupaloriwn resinosunn Yes C
White-wicky Kalnnia cuneala No E-SC
Bog spicebush Lindera subcoriacea No E
Boykin's lobelia Lobelia bojkirnii Yes C
Savanna cowbane O.x),polis lernata No E
Wavyleaf wild quinine Parlheniunr radfordii Yes W2
Conferva pondweed Polannogelon con jer-voides No C
Awned mcadow-beauty Rhexia aristosa No T
Spring-!lowering goldenrod Solidago verna Yes E
Wircleaf dropseed Sporobolus lerelifolius No T
Pickering's morning-glory Stvlisrna p. var. pickeringii Yes E
Smooth bog-asphodel Tofneldiaglabra Yes C
Venus flytrap Dionaea nnuscipula No C-SC
Carolina bogmint dlacbridea caroliniana Yes C
Roughlcaf yellow-cye grass lyris scabri, folio No C
Dwarf bunccad Echinodorrrs parvulus Yes C
Savanna camnvlonus Cannnvlonus carolinne Yes C
NC Status: SC, E, T, W2, and C denote Special Concern, Endangered, Thrcatcned, and Watch
List, respectively.
Candidate 2 (C2) species are defined as taxa for which there is some evidence of vulnerability, but
for which there is not enough data to warrant a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, or Proposed Threatened at this time. These species are mentioned here for information
purposes, should they become federally protected in the future. Specific surveys for any of these
species were not conducted, nor were these species observed during the site visit.
State 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.).
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program has a record (July 1975) for the River Frog (Rana
hecksheri), a North Carolina Status SC species, from the project site. A North Carolina Natural
12
Heritage Program survey on August 16, 1993 at the project site found no River Frog specimens. The
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program has a historical record for the Santee Chub (Cyprinella
zanenia), a North Carolina Status Significantly Rare (SR) species, at the project site. The North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program has a record (March 1994) for Sarvis holly (Ilex amelanchier),
a North Carolina Status SR species along the Lumber River from the Maxton Airport Swamp Priority
Area, approximately 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) south of the project site. The Maxton Airport Swamp
Priority Area is listed as having regional site significance. The North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program records no other state listed species occurring within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of the project
site.
Impacts
Impacts on plant communities are reflective of the relative abundance of each system present in the
study area. It should be noted that estimated impacts were derived using the entire proposed right-of-
way. Project construction often does not require the entire right-of-way and therefore actual impacts
may be less. Table 4 summarizes potential plant community impacts which could result from the
proposed bridge replacement.
TABLE 4
Impacts to Plant Communities for Alternative 1 in Hectares (Acres)
Plant Communities Permanent Impact
Floodplain Hardwood Forest 0.12 (0.29)
Urban/Disturbed 0.10 0.25
TOTAL 0.22 (0.56)
Note: Permanent Impacts based on a 24-meter (80-foot) corridor of the alignment.
Impacts to plant communities as a result of bridge replacements. for Alternative 1 are restricted to
narrow strips adjacent to the existing bridges and roadway segments. Bridge and approach
improvements occur primarily within disturbed right-of-way limits and hardwood forest edges. The
loss of hardwood forest habitat is likely to reduce the number of plant species which serve as shelter,
nesting and foraging habitat for numerous species of wildlife.
The proposed action will result in loss or displacement of known terrestrial plant or animal habitat.
Habitat affected by the proposed action include Urban/Disturbed and Hardwood Forested areas. The
Urban/Disturbed area is utilized by opportunistic plant species such as greenbrier and Japanese
honeysuckle and mobile species such as rodents, lizards and snakes that can recover quickly from
construction impacts. The hardwood forest areas bordering the Lumber River will receive
disturbances next to the existing bridge area. The Lumber River should continue to provide adequate
habitat areas for mammals, reptiles and birds.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will utilize the best management practices for the
proposed action to limit affects on the aquatic ecosystem. The disturbance of the riverbed 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.
13
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 river integrity. Increased runoff from roadway
surfaces will be partially mitigated by providing for vegetated road shoulders and limited use of
ditching where ever possible.
Stringent water quality controls are necessary because a water supply intake for the City of
Laurinburg is approximately 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) downstream of the study site. The project will
require an earthen structure be placed at the site for the collection of potential hazardous waste spills
adjacent to the bridge. Short term impacts to water quality can be anticipated from construction-
related activities, which may increase sedimentation and turbidity. If bridge piers are removed during
construction activities, then sediment curtains and coffer dams will be used to minimize sedimentation
into the river. Additionally, impacts will be minimized by the use of best management practices,
including implementation of stringent erosion and sedimentation control measures during
construction.
Permit Coordination
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.0.E. 1344), a permit
will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters
of the United States". Since the subject project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion, it is likely that
this project will be subject to the Nationwide Permit Provisions of 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23. This permit
authorizes any activities, work and discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or
financed, in whole or in part, by another federal agency and that the activity is "categorically
excluded" from environmental documentation because it is included within a category of actions
which neither individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment. However, final
permit decisions are left to the discretionary authority of the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the N.C. Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources, will also be required. This certificate is issued for any activity which
may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal permit is required.
Compensatory mitigation is not required under a Nationwide permit. Erosion and sedimentation
control measures will be strictly enforced during construction activities to minimize unnecessary
impacts to stream and wetland ecosystems. Best Management Practices will also be implemented.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge will
result in safer traffic operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack
of substantial environmental consequences.
14
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of the current North Carolina Department of Transportation standards and
specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No change in land
use is expected to result from the construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-Way acquisition will be
limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to adversely
affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The section of the Lumber River proposed for replacement is on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory
and could be studied in the future for possible National Wild and Scenic River designation. The
proposed bridge replacement site is located within the Liguid Park designation of the Lumber River
but not within the physical property boundaries of the Lumber River State Park. Since the
construction requires the placement of pilings in the river, a programmatic Section 4(0 evaluation
satisfies the requirements of Section 4(o. Approval of the programmatic Section 4(0 evaluation by
the National Park Service and the North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation are included in
the Appendix of this document.
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106, codified at Title 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that if a
federally funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a property listed on or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an
opportunity to comment. The project is also subject to compliance with Section 4(0 of the
Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended.
To comply with those requirements, the North Carolina Department of Transportation provided
documentation on the subject project for submittal to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation
Office. There are no structures over fifty years of age in the Area of Potential Effect (APE), depicted
in Figure 2. Correspondence with the State Historic Preservation Officer (see Appendix) indicates
that no National Register-listed or eligible properties are located within the area of potential effect.
Since there are no properties either listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
within the APE, no further compliance with Section 106, with respect to architectural resources, is
required.
In response to a scoping letter from the North Carolina Department of Transportation, the Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer, in a memorandum dated December 19, 1994 (see Appendix),
15
recommended that "no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project."
Therefore, no archaeological work was conducted for the project.
This project has been coordinated with the United States Soil Conservation Service. The Farmland
Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to consider the potential
impact to prime farmland of all land acquisition and construction projects. There are no soils
classified as prime, unique, or having state or local importance in the vicinity of the project.
Therefore, the project will not involve the direct conversion of farmland acreage within these
classifications.
The project is located in Scotland and Robeson Counties, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Parts 51 is not applicable
because the proposed project is located in this attainment area. This project is not anticipated to
create any adverse effect on the air quality of this attainment area.
This project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, the impact on noise levels and
air quality will not be substantial. Noise levels could increase during construction but will be
temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plans for air quality
in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for noise analysis of Title 23 CFR Part 772
and for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the National Environmental Policy
Act.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina
Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no underground
storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Scotland County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The approximate
100-year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 6. The amount of floodplain area to be
affected is not substantial.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in alignment will result
in a crossing of about the same magnitude. All reasonable measures will be taken to minimize any
possible harm.
The project will not increase the upstream limits of the 100-year floodplain.
In the vicinity of the project, there are no structures located within the limits of the 100-year
floodplain.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental
impacts will result from implementation of the project.
16
A.
v -' v
14
1502
B .9
40 1 1424 o 1426 140 } e ??
19
1427 b 14V {?3
29 1_425
?r ® a
h 1431 5 P? > 140'
142 k
147
O . a Ofi'
2 ? 1
9•. 0 h
? 1433 PS
F 0 ®4
laurinburg
/j 1434 moxton
S v N
FP 1269 Aiport
I ©v o
a I D © ®© 1479
_0 143.5 9
)4D 110, 40,
•9 i
au
0 ? A
0
0
0
u ..."on
n Z++ C
.f
1417
1
\ SCOT p
® 0
0 ®
© ©4

?e.
E ?
h
i
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
•% c•? BRANCH
Scotland and Robeson Counties
SR-1433 & SR-1310 over
Lumber River
Bridge #32
B-2866
FIGURE 1
A
1610
•3 .2

1479
1504
.y f 7 1.495.
2.0 .2
1.1 74
• 1611
13
O•
FqS 11436
x 1060

?-- N ,' i s .
Scotland and Robeson Counties
a Centre
°/ _ 1308
:i: SR-1433 & SR-1310 over
6 0 440 2.2 13oa h Lumber River
lll??. 1309 IIIIpp°pa"QdaappQQ Bridge 432
.... qs ?? . a®qnQ B-2866
. 32 o"?, ??. LUMBER °acoa?
BRIDGE NO `?•
`/ _ . .. , _. _ _ ; ,\ 6 fl • ? poi/ ?....r _ ?J.. ,? ?/ VEf? • v _ ?
7 CN S p?h ALTERNATIVE 1 4 ®o®o poi `/ l?y; 1360
\-
Cr (RECOMMENDED) oo •e sd •:1376 ro . • .
OFF-SITE DETOUR 4°
?0 Cp Q/ '2 71
`/ ; .. • o? OF `Q -
1391
.1.2 9 p' o. .2
i
OQ _ c - N • t7 pQ v • -
cl?
Creak " `c...
f
°
.8 .? ?4 p Q`'0S
?p 4 `:. b y Gj w:
19 .6 f . ? \ 8
Cb,
U_ .8
9% ~ ?.? BPS) 1.3 ,
cl?
dby. JCC? ;F !? ?? ?'? 9 0 b; f
01
V.. 0
b C,
0110 r
U 6 pQ • ?Q ?1jbb
{ ?JQ PLO 2 ^??y1n0
S
?P a / :':7 ,\a d flI!a
0 7.-f
b Jc,`? w o c' 1?d 4
10
10 ?? r
`\ Ps b h . :a ? ,"? fAS h0 ry~ Via., ' 1 ? 4•\
FAP ff? :?? ?? 2 1 f
h 5 '7_ 6
5+ ?e'`'Da P. :9 ,.`mac rQ• ?, `/:*_'? FAS 1'2 tr .4 ;
c
01
mil: 1$- ` ?j Iw F.0 .? FIGURE 2A

r
SIDE VIEW

SOUTH APPROACH
LOOKING NORTH

o
?
z
w
L til
N Z
w Q°
..
~ ~ Z 0(:) I O O

w
?OU > r4
c?
cn
[L cn
CL U O z z ,-
N 2 z U o ?- 0 00
CL' .a to N

I
F
I
F ? H? b M
7 Q?
o Q '
b
i
U
4
C

J J
z z
O O
F- F-
U U
w
cn w
cn

U
z U u, a
' N
? o0 CL)
L4J
A O F-
cc to (-4j O O o
0-
O m

Q W 0
cc CL
M %D v:
N
co
Q
J J '-
U U `c°
CL
n
H H ?
C7
a?
c
N O N
I C7
W N -;
v
Q
•
a CL
:2 a
?
L_ 7
O j
L 0
L
Cn
N U)
ca co
J a F-
11 II 11
L7 N
Y J CL h-
r?
V
w

O
F' d
z F-
`'' z
.? w
t- z
? z
a
a
W

?0 0 0
odx Vo

0
c? ( rM b)
N
U O z aC?n``o

M a. o ?x

V) Z: U o ?41) 00

U to C4

?..i
?? zd
w m
O
p zI-Dam v'a
v a

N

Z
O
z
O

H U

O
..

?s o a O
N ?Q

z
bbb
ca.

^
o
H 0 0 0
o 0 0
M
v Q
U
- M N ?
N N co)
3
C/1 a?
c

V
Q
? (:X00 00
\ -
a OA C? O
^? -+ N

O
H
U

W

.•r
W
0
V\
r
100-YEAR FLOOD LIMIT
V -
Scotland and Robeson Counties
SR-1433 & SR-1310 over
?o, Lumber River
N Bridge #32
B-2866
.c P? f
200 r.
?i
?A/5 xy ?
,rr
zr 4M
i
r.
l? F,?d44
BRIDGE 110. 32
1 ? y4st q -
F
I PO
1 ° -
Emu]
/ 1/12]
\V?
j?

APPENDIX

G c f ?F
020
DEC 2 2 1 994
i;
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
December 19, 1994
MEMORANDUM
?v, i4^rF•. ,
Histo h?
Division of Arc '' dS. 10
William S. Price,
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook Deputy State I-i storic-Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Group VII Bridge Replacement Projects (fifteen
bridges), Multicounty, CH 95-E-4220-0305
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have reviewed the list of fifteen bridges planned for replacement. With the
exception of B-2830, Greene County on NC 123 over Contentnea Creek on which
we commented at a "meeting of the minds" in 1994, we have no record of having
seen these proposed projects.
Given our lack of staff in the Survey and Planning Branch to review the potential
impacts of these replacements on-historic buildings, we are unable to respond to
your request for comments at this time. We suggest you direct your consultants,
MA Engineering, to make an appointment with Renee Gledhill-Earley to check our
maps and files or have her review aerial photographs or maps of the project areas.
Our comments with regard to archaeological resources are as follows:
Bridge 23 on NC 123 over Contentnea Creek, B-2830, Greene County, ER 94-
8699
There are no recorded archaeological sites within the immediate project vicinity,
although the area south of the existing bridge contains a very high probability for
the presence of prehistoric resources. It is likely that we will recommend an
archaeological survey for this project, but we are unable to complete our review
without project details and location. Please forward them as soon as they are
available.
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
H. F. Vick
December 19, 1994, Page 2
Bridge 109 on SR 1734 over New Hope Creek, B-2852, Orange County
Archaeological site 31 OR438* * is likely to be affected by the proposed bridge
replacement project. This historic period mill dam is located across New Hope
Church north of SR 1734. We recommend that the project area be surveyed and
site 31 OR438* * be tested and evaluated for its National Register eligibility if it is
to be affected by the project:
Bridge 2 on SR 1003 over Pig Basket Creek, B-2850, Nash County
Bridge 14 on SR 1609 over Fishing Creek, B-2828, Granville County
Bridge 13 on SR 1530 over Haw River, B-2802, Alamance County
Bridge 289 on SR 1152 over Swift Creek, B-2871, Wake County
Bridge 2 on SR 1529 over Haw River, B-2801, Alamance County
There are no recorded archaeological sites located in the project vicinity.
However, we are unable to assess the project's potential effects upon as yet
unrecorded resources without a project location. As soon as a location and
detailed project information (including new right-of-way, approach work, detour
structures) is available, please forward it to us so we may complete our review.
Bridge 37 on NC 73 over Big Mountain Creek, B-1336, Richmond County
Bridge 15 on SR 1100 over Barnards Creek, B-2595, New Hanover County
Bridge 27 on NC 904 over Scipped Swamp, B-2807, Brunswick County
Bridge 37 on US 13 over South River, B-2819, Cumberland and Sampson Counties
Bridge 82 on SR 1456 over Deep River, B-2849, Moore County
Bridge 45 'on NC 211 over Raft Swamp, B-2860, Robeson County
Bridge 61 on SR 1935 over Ten Mile Swamp, B-2863, Robeson County
Bridge 32 on SR 1433 and SR 1310 over Lumber River, B-2866, Robeson and
Scotland Counties
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend
that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
B. Church
T. Padgett
i? [ ^rc1 ,
t` lK
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, secretary
February 21, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Barbara Church
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
'n ?
Department of Transportation /
FROM: Renee Gledhill--Earley
P,CL\C
Environmental Revie?,J' oorc inator
Historic Preservation Office
SUBJECT: Concurrence Forms

Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Attached are the fully executed concurrence forms for properties not eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places for the following projects:
Alamance County, B-2801; Federal Aid BRZ-1529(2), Replace Bridge No. 2
on SR 1529 over Prong of Haw River
Alamance County, B-2802, Federal Aid BRSTP-1530(1), Replace Bridge No.
13 on SR 1530 over Haw River
Brunswick County, B-2807, Federal Aid BRSTP-904(2), Replace Bridge No.
27 on NC 904 over Scippio Swamp
Cumberland County, B-2819, Federal Aid BRSTP-13(3), Replace Bridge No.
37 on US 13 over South River
Granville County, B-2828, Federal Aid BRZ-1609(1), Replace Bridge No. 14
on SR 1609 over Fishing Creek
Greene County, B-2830, Federal Aid BRSTP-123(1), Replace Bridge No. 123
on NC 123 over Contentnea Creek
More County, B-2849, Federal Aid, BRZ-1456(3), Replace Bridge No. 82 on
SR 1456 over Deep River
Nash County, B-2850, Federal Aid BRZ-1003(13), Replace Bridge No. 2 on
SR 1003 over Pig Basket Creek
New Hanover County, B-2595, Federal Aid BRSTP-1100(5), Replace Bridge
No. 15 on SR 1100 over Barnards Creek
r"D
G
109 East Joo:s street - Ralcigh. North Carolina 27601-2507 ='
Barbara Church
February 21, 1995, Page 2
Orange County, B-2852, Federal Aid BRSTP-1734(2), Replace Bridge No.
109 on SR 1734 over New Hope Creek
Richmond County, B-1336, Federal Aid BRSTP-6491(2), Replace Bridge No.
37 on NC 73 over Big Mountain Creek
Robeson County, B-2860, Federal Aid BRSTP-21 1(1), Replace Bridge No. 45
on NC 211 over Raft Swamp
Robeson County, B-2863, Federal Aid BRZ-1935(1), Replace Bridge No. 61
on SR 1935 over Ten Mile Swamp
Scotland County, B-2866, Federal Aid BRSTP-1433(1), Replace Bridge No.
32 on SR 1433 over Lumber River
Wake County, B-2871, Federal Aid BRSTP-1 152(2), Replace Bride No. 289
on SR 1 152 over Swift Creek
Please distribute to the appropriate engineer and to Federal Highway
Administration. We have kept copies for our files.
RGE:slw
Attachments
TIP n 1?1- U(oc,
Federal Aid n ?PSrP - 1433(?? County Score a a p
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description
1ZEPt.AGr; l7RIpCZ ?Jo. 32 cQ 5F- 14372 ovEa- lum&e?-- R??etZ
On --?AOu kEj Qk 1995 , representatives of the

North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highwav Administration (FHwA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at

A scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
? there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
? there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fiftv years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as are
considered not eligible- for the National Register and no further evaluation of thenr-i§ necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
21-2-15-,5
Representative, NCDOT Date
A, r the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency

Rep entative, SHPO
State Historic Preservation Officer
Date

If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.

UNITED STATES NATURAL RESOURCES POST OFFICE BOX 756
DEPARTMENT CONSERVATION FAIRMONT, NC 28340
OF AGRICULTURE SERVICE TELEPHONE [phone]
April 27, 1995 ?? C
Mr.H. Frank Vick, PE
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC Department of Transportation ,QPR 2 8 1995
P.O. Box 25201 Z
Raleigh, NC 27611 2(?, OryISI OF CJ
¢9 NIGHWV QQ
RE: AD-1006 Bridge Replacement Projects "I A1'S
?R?NME? P
Dear Mr. Vick:
Enclosed are forms AD-1006 (Farmland Conversion Impact Rating) for
bridge replacement projects B-2807, B-2819, B-2330, B-2°50, B-2860,
B-2863, F-2866, and B-2595. I have completed Parts II, IV, and V
of the form for those projects where the corridor contains prime,
unique, statewide, or local important farmland.
In instances where the project area extended across county lines,
I prepared a separate form AD-1006 for the respective acreage that
occurs in each county.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please
contact me at the above number.
Sincerely yours,
Willie E. Spruill
Resource Soil Scientist
.Enclosures
cc: Phil Tant, Asst. State Soil Scientist, MRCS
S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
A Conservation Service SCS-CPA-106
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING 01-91
FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS
1RT I (To be completed by Federal Agency) 3. Data of Land Evaluation Request a
?
Name of Protecl 3- 22 - !.S
SA /*33 Seotl••n .C Co J TiP 6-2866 s. Federal Agency Involved
FHWA
shoot I of
Type of Project
H:9ti war , 2 /",7 es 6.
Coenty and state Sco f land Goy 711, -a-294Z
MC -
MIT 31 {To be completed bySl:S) 1?.IIataReQUest SC ,
:2 `Pmann ComDial' F
'
11
Does2ho florridorcmrita,n pump; unique tz owide or local impcrmri: famthrtt#,2
(IErtoaho.1=PPAduosnotap
YF' ?] rra
=Do not:
l
ly
a
i
r
so r
i >
i Aaas lzrya; ,d vv a;e a m ,r e
como
p
ot
tio
.
z?d
apart
l.thisform)_
cro+'xs) ti Farmabls land In Covemment.}unc+`4wn 7. Amount of Far? As Bn5ne-d InFPPA '
Act": v
Name tJ! Land Eva:un5on System Used 9: Namo at Lora! Ske Aaseximcxu Syx?m Acrra: e.
10. D? l.nrrd Evakuttmn Ro-• -
xned BY S
271-- J
RT III (To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative Corridor For Segment
Corridor A
Total Acres To Be Converted Directly Corridor 0 Corridor C Corridor D
O
Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly. Or To Receive Services o
O
Total Acres In Corridor
D
4TIV (Io be completed bY'S Land Evah etJon Information O
Total' Acres'Prima And Uniaiio Farmland
....,. .
Toial%AcresStutetiindeArsdLocal4m ortaniFarmlartd
peroan , e Of Farmland In Hoerr Or Locai-covt. LI rt'To $e Converted .
Dercerrtaae Of Fanrttand In Govt. Jurisdiction With Saute Or Hioher Relative-Vaiu
tTY` obecom .... ,.
(T
let
db
S
e
p
y
CS) Land.Fvalvetlorr Crlterlon Rctlatlve YaFie '
:
.
..
ermlarsdYo'BeServlced.or-Converted` (Scale 'of0-1t30.polnts
IT VI (To be c ! t d b
omp e e y Federal Agency) Corridor
essmenl Ctiteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5,
1. Area In N
2. Perimeter
3. Percent C
W Protection
5. Size Of P,
5. Creation
ir. Availabilih
3. On-Farts
). Effects Of
0. Comnatih
OTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS
r vii (To be completed by Federal Agency)
etative Value Of Farmland (From Part V)
20
25
10
160
100
tal Corridor Assessment (From Part VI above or a local site
sessment ) 160
OTAL POINTS (Total of above 2lines) I 260
rridor Selected: 2. Total Acres of Farmlands to be 3.
Converted by Project:
ason nor Selection:
Maximum
Points
In Nonurban Use 10
'Corridor Beina Farmed 40
Provided B State And Local Government 20
?sent Farm Unit Compared To Average . .10
1 Nonfarmabie Farmland 25
Of Farm Suooort Services - 5
on On Farm Suooort Services
Existina Aoriculluml 11-
4. Was A Local Site Assessment Use
YES ? No ?
ere of Person Completing This Part:
DAT
_: Complete a form for each Segment with more than one Attemativa rnrrirfnr
1.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
;oil Conservation Service SCS-CPA-106
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING 01-9'
FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS
'ART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) 3. Date of Land Evaiuauon Request
. Name of Project5P- 5. Federal Agency Involved ??2 2
IMF 33 Ro(?es??- Co ur Ftl r„I to
1. Area In Nonurban Use 15
'. Perimeter In Nonurban Use 10
Percent Of Corridor Beino Farmed 20
4. Protection Provided B State And Local Government 20
5. Size Of Present Farm Unit Comoared To Average 10
6. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland 25
7. Availabilitv Of Farm Sucoon Services 5
8. On-Farm Investments 20
9. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Suooort Services 25
10. ComoanbiliN With Existina Aaricultural Use 10
TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
IT VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
lelative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100
otal Corridor Assessment (From Part VI above or a local site
ssessment )
160
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260
amdor Selected:

eason For Selection: 2. Total Acres of Farmlands to be
Converted by Project: 3. Date
Sheei i Of 4. Was A Local Site Assessment Used?

YES ? NO El
cure of Person Compleung This Pan: DA
-E: COmolefe a form for each Seement with more than one Altemative Corridor.
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(o

NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITH MINOR INVOLVEMENTS WITH
PUBLIC PARKS, RECREATION LANDS, AND WILDLIFE AND WATERFOWL REFUGES
F. A. Project
State Project
BRSTP-1433(1)
8.2590201
T. I. P. No. B-2866
Description: Replacement of the SR 1433 Lumber River Bridg e
(Bridge No. 32) and improvements to adja cent roadway
approaches. See description, page 6.
Yes No
1. Is the proposed project designed to improve the
operational characteristics, safety, and/or
physical condition of existing highway facilities / a
on essentially the same location? V
2. Is the project on new location? El V/
3. Is the Section 4(f) land a publicly owned public park,
recreation land, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge / ?
located adjacent to the existing highway? _?/
4. Does the amount and location of the land to be used
impair the use of the remaining Section 4(f) land,
in whole or in part, for its intended purpose? F-1 v//
(See chart below)
Total size of section 4(f) site Maximum to be acquired
less than 10 acres ..................10 percent of site
10 acres-100 acres .................. I acre
greater than 100 acres .............. 1 percent of site
5. Do the proximity impacts of the project (e.g., noise,
air and water pollution, wildlife and habitat effects,
aesthetic values) on the remaining Section 4(f) land
impair the'use of such land for its intended purpose?
6. Do the officials having jurisdiction over the
Section 4(f) land agree, in writing, with the assessment
of the impacts of the proposed project on, and the ?
proposed mitigation for, the Section 4(f) lands?
5
2
Yes No
7. Does the project use land from a site purchased or
improved with funds under the Land and Water
Conservation Act (Section 6(f)), the Federal Aid in Fish
Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson Act), the Federal Aid
in Wildlife Act (Pittman-Robertson Act), or similar
laws, or are the lands otherwise encumbered with a
Federal interest (e.g., former Federal surplus /
property)?- ? ?'
8. If the project involves lands described in Item 7
above, does the appropriate Federal Agency object ? V
to the land conversion or transfer? _
9. Does the project require preparation of an EIS? ?
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT
The following alternatives were evaluated and found not
to be feasible and prudent:
Yes No
1. Do-nothing. Z ?
Does the "do nothing" alternative:

(a)
correct capacity deficiencies?
? /
t/
or (b) correct existing safety hazards? I?
or (c) correct deteriorated conditions? ? ?
and (d) create costs, unusual problems, or impacts /

of extraordinary measure?
? ?
2. Improvement of the highway without using the
adjacent public park, recreational land, or

wildlife waterfowl refuge. ?
(a) Have minor alignment shifts, changes in standards,
use of retaining walls, etc., or traffic management
b
l
?
measures
een eva
uated?
(b) The items in 2(a) would result in:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) substantial adverse community impact

or (ii) substantial increased costs
6
3
or (iii) unique engineering, transportation,
maintenance, or safety problems
or (iv) substantial social, environmental, or
economic impacts
or (v) a project which does not meet the need
and vi) impacts, costs, or problems which are of
extraordinary magnitude
3. Build an improved facility on new location without
using the public park, recreational land, or wildlife
and waterfowl refuge. (This would be a localized
14 run around.")
(a) An alternate on new location would
result in: (circle, as appropriate)
(i) a project which does not solve the
existing problems
or (9or substantial social, environmental,
economic impacts
or (iii) a substantial increase in project cost
or engineering difficulties
and (iv) such impacts, costs, or difficulties
of truly unusual or unique or
extraordinary magnitude
Yes No

Note: Any response in a box requires additional information prior to
approval. Consult Nationwide 4(f) evaluation.
7
4
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
Yes No
1. The project includes all possible planning to
minimize harm.
2. Measures to minimize harm include the following:
(circle those which are appropriate)
a. Replacement of lands used with lands of reasonably
equivalent usefulness and location and of at least
comparable value.
b. Replacement of facilities impacted by the project
including sidewalks, paths, benches, lights, trees
and other facilities.
cO. Restoration and landscaping of disturbed areas.
d. Incorporation of design features and habitat features,
where necessary, to reduce or minimize impacts to the
Section 4(f) property.
e. Payment of the fair market value of the land and
improvements taken or improvements to the remaining
Section 4(f) site equal to the fair market value of
the land and improvements taken.
O Additional or alternative mitigation measures as
determined necessary based on consultation with the
officials having jurisdiction over the parkland,
recreation area, or wildlife on waterfowl refuge.
3. A discussion of specific mitigation measures is provided as follows:
A. At least one span shall be kept open at all times for pleasure
boaters who use this section of the Lumber River.
B. The locations of the new bridge piers shall be designed as
much as possible so as not to obstruct river traffic.
C. NCDOT shall install a sign just upstream and downstream of the
bridge noting bridge construction is underway.
8
5
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach
correspondence):
a. Officials having jurisdiction over the ?C
Section 4(f) Land
b. Local/State/Federal Agencies
C. US Coast Guard
(for bridges requiring bridge permits)
d. DOI, if Section 6(f) lands are involved _
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criterial included in the programmatic 4(f)
evaluation approved on December 23, 1986.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are
clearly applicable to this project. There are no feasible or prudent
alternatives which avoid use of the Section 4(f) land.
The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm, and there are
assurances that the measures to minimize harm will be incorporated in the
project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed.
Approved:
to
8131 ?.?
Date
F-Z? /?-
Manager, Plannin & Environmental Branc
NCOOT
9
6
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This proposed construction is part of the B-2866 project which
includes replacement of the SR 1433 Lumber River bridge (Bridge No.
32) and improvements to 200 feet of roadway approach at each end of
the bridge.
The Lumber River State Park was established by the North Carolina
General Assembly in 1989 but no land was acquired until the summer
of 1991 during a special session of the General Assembly. There is
no actual Lumber River State Park land in the vicinity of this
project. However, the park limits at the SR 1433 Lumber River
bridge (Bridge No. 32) is the mean water level of the Lumber River.
Since the bridge replacement will cause the placement of pilings
into the Lumber River, a 4(f) statement is required.
The Section 4(f) involvement consist of the removal of the existing
bridge over the Lumber River and the construction of a new bridge
in the same location. The new bridge will be approximately 240
feet long and have a 30-foot clear roadway width. See Figures 1,
2, 3 and 4 attached. A temporary off-site detour will be provided
during the duration of construction.
NCDOT will design the placement of the pilings and bridge piers, to
the extent possible, so as not to disrupt the existing or future
boating traffic on the Lumber River.
J y _ q 14U?
1502 l u'
y
6 b 9 0-%
401 p
1424 'y 1426 1403
Q
a 1427 f 6 142 ?Il6
29 1425 N
i
140
,r 0
h 1431 ? ha 1 4A7?
5
1 © yP
1472
0 a 0
???PS p 0 C
i 1433
107 Laurinburg
P .1434 rAaxton
S N Airport
F P I 369 1 , Q©
V v 1497
i
A I ® 0 1479
I ?' ® .1435 .9
V
© © 0
44
0
n ZX c'® © 0
15 'f
© Pi
\ SCOT ,® r ti
t ® ? Ri
Old Hundred 1 r4 snennon
1 Red sp?n(1 ty?r
we' "'' liurinbur R 'I
• r eh F-f - / 1 I& Its A
i
O •tton 11
l ? Ime / Bwe
/onnV "R t If
Nul>I? I e IWe
V) I Reemon 1 ' to to
? ` 501 r--'l. '

O 11.0 ?I 1 /t
® to
F armonl
loci n11
I Orr 1
B ? rdmi
I Bern? ya'
u rretl

:? I
A 1479
0 'S 111 ,5- ion
1504 1495,
Fqs b _ 8 1.) 74
,_11v .9-
2'
1611
A fl 1f 1133
? , cn .8 ••
P
/' I,8 FqS 1436
G
1610 1611 F'
o •3 2 f ?.s:;i: 6
1609 f? •?
s,rn1 Pelrlt
i
1t
O N
I
+ Lugbert
e
uenl ?t.
0
h,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
_ DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
?•,c° BRANCH
SCOTLAND & ROBESON COUNTIES
SR 1433 & SR 1310
BRIDGE NO 32 OVER
LUMBER RIVER
B-2888 FIGURE 1

iilllaniktala Associates
Design Brief
BY DATE SUBJECT !x/?, '(?,-)
SHEET NO
CHKD. OY DATE JOB NO. _

I
r
rJ '
.10 1
7
i
a

z?
i
? v

1?! (? r 0
?i
M
?I
I
OF
FIGURE 2

0

z

L Lil

L
Z
d
>- 0
c
tit d
W
C7
i >
d Z .:: Z
s
?0U
w i
p
o F- ... z
O d w
Q 00 d m
U '
r

m M. O 0 Z
Z U
N F- J
F
y
zd D
O w

() ° O CL L ..a a
z ?- o o m v ,;>
00
o
?' Z M
Q M W lD
JVC.7iD

O 1 -. N
W 1
cn c/1 co co

i

j CC
O
E- ?
cn U
LLJ
Z J
O
J

7- O
u

U O

v? Q
W ?

C U
S
0. Q

F- ?

? Q
Q
o u
z .
> a >
>
CD
?
? ? ? co Ln
o LL N N
(Y) _ - O
(I)
U) 0)
Q 2
J
cu
j- C() CO
U Q 0- (T
-
' N
0 0

Q
Z
O
I-
O
Z

LL
M
w
Z
C7
W
L
o
?
F-
z
u

w w
f L
C
Z ~
Z
<
L }0 7
U) In L:j
n 3 > U ° m
.- w
F- ~ ZOUW Z co >
(L
?I--O O O W
OF< .u
O w Q N >?
() f`') cc co
t!1 U) C?
VOZZ O a7 O ¢m
a a u')2ZU
F- Q CV) Z wN
Z ''
> Cl) w m
v a
0
?
? Z p

Q Q
¢
J (n m
F-

J J
Z Z
_O
f-' F-
U U
w w
(n U)

S _
S ?
'n
U
Z U w d
_
O F-
C?j U)
Oa O
N C(D
= cn a a .. t

w o
0
` to

Q
a
Q 3.
N
J J
U U
CL a
F}- } F-

C)
,J J
C L
N (37

X Cl)
W •D
.D
Q
N
CL U
a

a?
L 7
O ?
t O
> L
>
N N -0 N
a'
>

2
1 D 7
ca t
J CL F-

a II 11 II
(n (n
Y J a F-
v
w
C3
LL
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Parks & Recreation
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Dr. Philip K. McKnelly, Director
March 20, 1995
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:
CE
tl
MAR 2 4 1995,'
kIDIVISICII QF C-HWAYS ?Oi?r!`1(E? ti
The Division of Parks and Recreation has reviewed the draft 4(f) evaluation for the
replacement of Bridge No. 32 on SR 1433 over the Lumber River. We appreciate the safety
measures that have been proposed as a part of the project.
No facilities are, proposed for this location in the Lumber River State Park master plan.
Access facilities are planned for locations both upstream and downstream of the bridge
replacement project, but construction of these facilities has not been funded and is not likely
to occur in the near future.
In the meantime, a substantial amount of informal river access takes place at this bridge and
is likely to continue after the bridge replacement. The parking and access situation at present
is quite hazardous. We recommend including in the roadway improvement design any
feasible measures to improve safety at his location.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposed project.
Sincerely,
6at, ?, at
v
Carol A. Tingley, Chief
Natural Resources Section
CAT/gsr
cc: Dr. David S. Fuh
M.A. Engineering Consultants, Inc.
?7kY]
^?. ©
I
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 60% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
a
*NT
pF r
o
IN REPLY REFER To
--------------
United States Department of the
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE
75 Spring Strict, S. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
L7619 (SER-PC)
Ii. Franklin Vick, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:
Interior Ah C
4
D
f ?4.?at? 2 Jgv-5
i
DIVISIGN OF 2q
HIGHWAYS
VIRON,
This responds to the February 28 letter requesting any comments we
may have on the Final Nationwide Section 4 f
Approval document for replacing the existing bridge Eon State on and
1433 over the Lumber River in Scotland County.
Route
The section of the Lumber River
proposed for replacement is on the
Nationwide Rivers Inventory and could be studied in the future
possible National Wild and Scenic River designation. Nonetheless,
for
we have no objection to use of the
this project. Programmatic Section 4(f) for
Replacement of the existing bridge should not have
a major adverse impact on any future designation of the riv
We recommend for additional mitigation that you contact t er.
Carolina Department of Environmental Management, Division o
and Recreation for a determination whether access to t he North
desirable at this location. of Parks
concerning brid e They may also provide recom river is
river g e including the location of mend in the
as well as steps which may be taken to piers in the
impacts on aesthetics and on water based recreation.
mitigate adverse
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these
comments.
Sincerely
ell
W. Thomas Brown
Associate Regional Director
Planning and External Affairs

r?