19970782 Ver 1_Complete File_19970908

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources M M5VA
IT
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary ID E H N F=?L
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
September 24,1997
Scodand/Hoke County
WQC 401 Project #970782
TIP No. B-3044
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. Frnak Vick
NC Dot
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, to fill in 0.37 acres of wetlands or waters for the purpose
of replacing bridge 34 at the Lumber River as you described in your application dated September 8. 1997. After reviewing your
application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3107 This Certification
allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 23 when it is issued by the Corps of Engineers. In addition, you should get any
other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion
Control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. Also this approval will expire when the
accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change your project,
you must notify as and you may be required to send us a new application. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the
future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h). For this approval to
be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification. Dot is reminded that NC regulations entitled "Design
Standards in Sensitive Waters (15 A NCAC 04B .0024) must be strictly adhered to throughout design and construction within 1.6
km (1 mile) and draining to the Lumber River.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within
60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To. ask for a hearing, send a written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of
the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This
certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you have
any questions, please telephone John Domey at 919-733-1786.
Attachment
cc. Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
Fayetteville DWQ Regional Office
M. John Dorney
Central. Files
S' ly,
ton Ho, Jr. P
970782.1tr
Division of Water Quality • Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sdences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper

I
?Ty ,w ST^*F o
?1. Mua
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
May 5, 1995
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Replacing Bridge No. 34 on
SR 1404/SR 1104 over Lumber River, Scotland and Hoke
Counties, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1404(3), State
Project No. 8.2590301, TIP No. B-3044
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 June 6, 1995 at 10:00 a.m. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). 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 Wayne Fedora, P. E., Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
WF/pl r 00 1 5 1
Attachment --7 - I - 43
tj r.
Suj ?
F-*'

M
BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TIP PROJECT: B-3044 DIVISION: EIGHT
F. A. PROJECT: BRZ-1404(3) COUNTY: SCOTLAND/HOKE
STATE PROJECT: 8.2590301 ROUTE: SR 1404/1104
PROJECT PURPOSE: Replace Obsolete Bridge
DESCRIPTION: Replace Bridge No. 34 on SR 1404/1104 over
lumber River in Scotland and Hoke Counties
PROJECT USGS QUAD SHEET: Lumberton
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ................................ $ 650,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 50,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ..................................... $
TIP TOTAL COST ....................................... $ 700,000
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: (S) (i)
TRAFFIC: CURRENT BPD; DESIGN YEAR VPD
TTST DT
PROPOSED TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION: . -METER ( -FOOT) TRAVELWAY
PLUS METER ( . -FOOT) GRADED
SHOULDERS ( -METER/ . -FOOT IF
GUARDRAIL IS USED)
EXISTING STRUCTURE:LENGTH 73.2 Meters WIDTH 6.7 Meters
240.0 Feet 22.0 Feet
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
COMMENTS:
PREPARED BY: Wayne Fedora, F.E. DATE 05/01/95
1 122
a Edinburgh h
` 1101 1.9
1 ao0 ` •2 1.0
1120
J f• 1 120
120
1403 ?G
......... 401 >: P •? 1 101_
1410 q :•? 1119
Purcell
1406 .7
a 11 4 1.5 'j' .6
FAS.5
. :. 1113
1104 1118
-col 405 h: x p® o WAGRAM 1 1 0 l l t 6
POP. 617 F 4 cb
1407 , 1103 1
® v 1403 .9 !'?
1419 1101 f\ 1117 \
16 ?P `? 102 1104
h O a 17 - ? Lill ?
J 1417 1407 q y g 1118
11,1 2
1104
U 9? 1418 +a 1100
1416 b
•6 " 1106 1421,
1100
?• 1407 •'
1105 '? •a ? 1107
21' 14,25 W? J 1,403 b- PIRlS?„°`
1426 1 L c" w =¢
1403
ty Haithb ?: ? - -- T
E
ta27 ? ?• ??H-.=01??K,
b 1 7 Montrose ? 13
• 1427 ?,.,nin tra 4
.8 • t7 Timberland o Rockba
Raetor t H
py 1407 oinac 01 n
aet e s s A?.Di.
T , 9 Do arracn 20 k
q y > '
5 SCOT aafam Anti W4
t ?---
? Old Hundr
aurel Hil F, lanrinburt
`\S I. Est
1 t 1unnur
.?iiDa '
J asen}} l a
0 S 3onnal
v?•? ' Hastl?
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
NORTH CAROLINA PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
SR 1404 / SR 1104
BRIDGE NO. 34
OVER LUMBER RIVER
T.LP. NO. 13-3044
Studied Detour Route 0 kilometers 1.6 0 miles 1
t I t t 1
"l

.,:. ?' _ .. ? _. _ .---o-coo _ ,a\ ...

?fTa

i`
. al `u -.
II
250
1
_
CD ory Grog
e
-r-- -t-.` -'? h ?\ ae - !+= fir'-

r.
\
25
.258

1 .1.

/ r.
•, an a v
? ,_? .,t
• _ \`\ 1100 s -"'111 . '`
4. - .: " 014 t_ /1• -
.y /I -
#
a "
?1 N y. ?Y. "f- _ _
-
ll. " • T `?\\ / II
- \ - - i

_+ _.. _ .. • ? ? F?r•
t II II 11 11
i i

` r

,
-
+°?'•
-jr
0 xis- 1101
II ?•.

t °I II l
11 N
\\ II
II

5
? 24

11
? \
_? -. ...
_'
', li
_. -_ 246 ;? 11
n
2
// 11 11 _..? "sY 11
• _
.. _. 250
had

- \ ??\\\ .Y-- - }1 +5C II -_ !G L ?? h.T?11L -13- _ ,,.,' NS .W '`Y - "• _.
- _
•
• o
?• ew l
G chriaze&?
- _ urcell Cem
_ -
-
-"
i e -
? J` Nr 4 _
_
?-: • ? • P • • 7 • • `\ ", JV_- . _•_I- LI. __ ?_?. _y_-
'``r0 -r1Y•.? ?`? -.L'.. _ .i+. ?Y- ?_ j4,
- -:-•4. . ?_ .fY_.
k
'? ?
Y
_ -_ .'.$.. -
- 11 ? -
? .
'a? _
-JYi
y? ?
•
. O" . I ', ak _ "
_'f
N , U? +-
Y
_e . - _
_
_'

•r Q
•
• \
P ?
•
\\;• •
• \ 222
\`?1?_
N _
__ __
_ _ .11L _.•?. .
2M1.. 111
•1• -'.11L- r!L $
_
...;aye'
•`• 239 Y /?/
z _ ia)E-tlr. _ -
? -
-. - _
.
1.

_-
__ ------ •..
1401 -
1
? -<__-
%'
1 a
=r? • r • ?
_ •\\ • // •. 1
1- y,, - -eY
V Illy T- -+i'i ?- 1
' N.
t
-
-
°- __ ??

I .
•
•
° 1, •• •? 4._ 'W -
? „ •am ScH
?_?
- _ --
p., ?.? ,-____- 'rrrr •,,
±
_
-
... is _. ??'- ._ -'?
- - . ` - ? ? Q.-:='? 250/
Ell
?
- _?
_=
,
la -
?
4

? 1403 2 so: 4?Y•9, :r=i^
3
`\ ? \\ al.. i 11 U 12>`? .l 4 1•r-. 1.

r.
1404 ii -
- 1104 _-?_y._
- - IlOI •'' ?-?:
O, ' .?•
'
`
r _ 230
224:
f
6 /
20 153 tMI Tp N.G 1701
61M 52
OUFFIES 5.5 MI.
22'30" 649 I 1 Isvu uuu r tr 1 -ou
4
M SfA??
r.a
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
September 8, 1997
401 ISSUED
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTN.: Mr. Cliff Winefordner
Chief, South Section
Dear Sir:
9'70782
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
-d
F2
o?
m
Subject: Scotland and Hoke Counties, Replacement of Bridge No. 34 over the
Lumber River on SR 1404 and SR 1104, Federal Aid Project
No. BRZ-1404(3), State Project No. 8.2590301, T.I.P. No. B-3044.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. Bridge No 34 will be replaced at its existing location with a bridge 85 meters
(278 feet) long and 7.8 meters (26 feet) wide. An off-site detour will be used to maintain
traffic during the construction period. Construction of the proposed project will impact
approximately 0.11 hectares (0.26 acres) of jurisdictional wetlands and 0.04 hectares
(0.11 acres) of jurisdictional surface waters.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical
Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CF 11 Therefore, we do not anticipate
requesting an individual permit, b p pose to pr eed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR Appenx (B-23). T provisions of Section 330.4 and
Appendix A (C) of these regulations ollowed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate a 401 General Certification will apply to this project, and are providing one
copy of the CE document to the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review.

4
2
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon
at 733-7844 Ext. 307.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Ernest Jahnke, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E. Program Development Branch
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. W. F. Rosser, P.E., Division 8 Engineer
Ms. Stacy Y. Baldwin, P & E Project Planning Engineer
Scotland and Hoke Counties
Bridge No. 34 on SR 1404 and SR 1104
over Lumber River
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1404(3)
State Project 8.2590301
T.I.P. No. B-3044
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AND
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) AND APPROVAL
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
D TE H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
DATE icholas L. Graf, .E.
tivision Administrator, FHWA
Scotland and Hoke Counties
Bridge No. 34 on SR 1404 and SR 1104
over Lumber River
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1404(3)
State Project 8.2590301
T.I.P. No. B-3044
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AND
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) AND APPROVAL
December 1996
Documentation Prepared by:
Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering, Inc. S0411pt1111,44,
?ZH CARQ???
????') /lltY 2 3l 9l9 = a SE At
Willis S. Hood, P.E. Date 's 14509 =
Project Manager //?,?'••:;NGI NEB; '0
for the North Carolina Department of Transportation
A. Bi?tt,
r., P.E
., Unit Hera
.4 Consultant Engineering Unit
Stacy Y. B dwin
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
Scotland and Hoke Counties
Bridge No. 34 on SR 1404 and SR 1104
over Lumber River
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1404(3)
State Project 8.2590301
T.I.P. No. B-3044
I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures, including Best Management Practices and
Sediment Control Guidelines, will be strictly enforced to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts.
North Carolina regulations entitled "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A
NCAC 04B .0024) will be strictly adhered to throughout design and construction within
1.6 kilometers (1 mile) and draining to High Quality Waters.
At least one span shall be kept open at all times for pleasure boaters who use this section
of the Lumber River.
The location of the new bridge piers shall be designed as much as possible so as not to
obstruct river traffic.
NCDOT shall install a sign just upstream and downstream of the bridge noting bridge
construction is underway.
To the extent feasible all landscaping and restoration will use only native species.
Scotland and Hoke Counties
Bridge No. 34 on SR 1404 and SR 1104
over Lumber River
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1404(3)
State Project 8.2590301
T.I.P. No. B-3044
Bridge No. 34 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 RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 34 will be replaced at the existing location as shown by Alternative 1 in
Figure 2. The recommended replacement structure consists of a bridge 85 meters (278
feet) long and 7.8 meters (26 feet) wide. This structure will provide two 3.3-meter (11-
foot) travel lanes with 0.6-meter (2-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 6.6-meter (22-foot) pavement width, to
provide two 3.3-meter (11-foot) lanes and 1.2-meter (4-foot) shoulders on each side
throughout the project limits.
A temporary off-site detour (see Figure 1) will be used to maintain traffic during the
construction period.
Estimated cost, based on current prices, is $988,500. The estimated cost of the project, as
shown in the 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program, is $755,000 ($725,000 -
construction; $30,000 - right-of-way).
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located on the Scotland and Hoke County Line, approximately 2.7
kilometers (1.7 miles) southeast of Wagram, North Carolina (see Figure 1). The area is
rural forested in nature and crosses the Lumber River, a liquid park; therefore, Section
4(f) of DOT Act of 1966 applies.
SR 1404 and SR 1104 are classified as rural minor collectors in the Statewide Functional
Classification System and are not Federal-Aid Roads. This route is not a designated
bicycle route.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1404 and SR 1104 have a 5.4-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 213 meters (700 feet) east from the structure, and the west
approach is on a mild curve which becomes tangent approximately 45 meters (150 feet)
west of the bridge. The roadway is situated approximately 6.6 meters (22 feet) above the
river bed.
The current traffic volume of 200 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to 400
VPD by the year 2020. The projected volume includes 1% truck-tractor semi-trailer
(TTST) and 2% dual-tired vehicles (DT). There is no posted speed limit; therefore, the
speed limit is assumed to be the statutory speed limit of 88 kilometers per hour (55 miles
per hour) in the project area.
Bridge No. 34 is a six-span structure that consists of a timber deck on steel girders. The
substructure consists of timber caps and piles with bulkhead-type abutments comprised of
corrugated steel sheeting and timber posts. The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was
constructed in 1949.
The overall length of the structure is 73.2 meters (240 feet). The clear roadway width is
6.4 meters (21 feet). The posted weight limit on this bridge is 10.9 metric tons (12 tons)
for single vehicles and 13.6 metric tons (15 tons) for TTST's.
Bridge No. 34 has a sufficiency rating of 20.2, compared to a rating of 100 for a new
structure. The existing bridge is considered structurally deficient.
There are no utilities attached to the existing structure. However, high tension power
lines cross the roadway diagonally approximately 91 meters (300 feet) east of the bridge.
An underground telephone line runs along the south side of the roadway approaches and
is aerial at the bridge. Utility impacts are anticipated to be low.
Three accidents have been reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 34 during the period
from January, 1992 to January, 1995. Two of the accidents were single vehicle incidents
in which each vehicle ran off the road in icy conditions; the third was a two-vehicle
incident involving a truck backing into a stopped passenger vehicle.
There is no school bus traffic crossing this bridge.
III. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 34 were studied. Each alternative consists of a
bridge 85 meters (278 feet) long and 7.8 meters (26 feet) wide. This structure width will
accommodate two 3.3-meter (11-foot) lanes with 0.6-meter (2-foot) shoulders on each
side. The approach roadway will consist of a 6.6-meter (22-foot) pavement width and
1.2-meter (4-foot) shoulders on each side. Typical sections of the approach roadway and
structures are included as Figure 4 and Figure 5.
The alternatives studied are shown on Figure 2 and are as follows:
Alternative 1 (Recommended) involves replacement of the structure along the existing
roadway alignment. Improvements to the approach roadways will be required for
approximately 60 meters (200 feet) in each direction from the bridge. A temporary off-
site detour will be provided during the construction period. The off-site detour will be
13.4 kilometers (8.4 miles) in length (see Figure 1). The design speed for this alternative
is 100 kilometers per hour (62 miles per hour). Alternative 1 is recommended because it
is less costly to construct and has less impact on the wetland environment as compared to
the additional roadway approach work for Alternative 2.
Alternative 2 involves replacement of the structure on new roadway alignment within the
study corridor upstream (north) of the existing structure. Improvements to the alignment
on the approaches include approximately 365 meters (1,200 feet) of roadway
construction. A temporary on-site detour will be provided during the construction period
by utilizing the existing structure and approaches. The temporary detour will be removed
once traffic is routed over the replacement structure and approaches. The design speed of
this alternative is 100 kilometers per hour (62 miles per hour). This alternative is not
recommended because it would introduce a curve on the east approach and would involve
365 meters (1,200 feet) of new approach roadway work through wetlands.
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
acceptable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1404 and SR 1104.
The NCDOT Division 8 Engineer 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.
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the two alternatives are as follows:
(Recommended)
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Structure $431,210.00 $431,210.00
Roadway Approaches $373,104.00 $451,104.00
Detour Structure and Approaches NA NA
Structural Removal $34,686.00 $34,686.00
Engineering and Contingencies $136,000.00 $133,000.00
Right-of-Way/Construction Easements/Utilities $13,500.00 $22,850.00
TOTAL $988,500.00 $1,072,850.00
V. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 34 will be replaced at its existing location, as shown by Alternative 1 in
Figure 2, with a bridge 85 meters (278 feet) long and 7.8 meters (26-feet) wide
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 6.6-meter (22-foot) pavement width with 1.2-meter (4-foot) shoulders on each side will
be provided on the approaches (see Figure 4). A 7.8-meter (26-foot) clear width is
recommended on the replacement structure in accordance with the current North Carolina
Department of Transportation Bridge Policy. SR 1404 and SR 1104 are classified as
rural collectors; therefore, criteria for a rural collector was used for the bridge
replacement. This will provide a 6.6-meter (22-foot) travelway with 0.6-meter (2-foot)
shoulders across the structure (see Figure 5). The design speed is 100 kilometers per hour
(62 miles per hour).
During the construction period, maintenance of traffic off--site is acceptable because of
low traffic volumes using SR 1404 and SR 1104. The off-site detour will be 13.4
kilometers (8.4 miles) in length (see Figure 1). 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 85 meters (278 feet). The bridge will have a 0.3% minimum
slope in order to facilitate drainage. The elevation of the new structure will be
approximately the same as the existing bridge so that there will be no increase to the
existing 100-year floodplain elevation. The length and height of the new structure may
be increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by
further hydrologic studies.
VI. NATURAL RESOURCES
A biologist visited the project site on May 7, 1996 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
Two 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.
Cypress-Gum Swamp:
This forested community occurs in all quadrants of the bridge as well as along the river
banks throughout the project area. The dominant canopy trees include sweet gum
(Liquidambar styracijlua), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), black willow (Salix
nigra), and bald cypress (Taxodium distichum). The understory consists of red maple
(Acer rubrum) and black titi (Cyrilla racemijlora). The shrub layer includes sweet gum,
blackberry (Rubus sp. ), privet (Ligustrum sinense), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica). The herbaceous layer includes common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia),
poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia),
muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia) and spleenwort (Asplenium sp.). The soil within the
Cypress-Gum Swamp community is a black (10 YR 3/1) coarse silty sand which is
saturated to the surface. Other hydrologic indicators throughout the site includes standing
water, buttressing of tree trunks, and water marks and drift lines on trees.
Man-Dominated:
This highly disturbed community within the project area includes the road shoulders.
Many plant species are adapted to these disturbed and regularly maintained areas.
Regularly maintained areas along the road shoulders are dominated by fescue (Festuca
spp.), ryegrass (Lolium spp.), white clover (Trifolium repens), dandelion (Taraxacum
off cinale), wild onion (Allium cernuum), buttercup (Ranunculus bulbosis), narrow-leaved
vetch (Vicia angustifolia), and purple dead nettle (Lamium purpureum).
Wildlife (General)
Terrestrial:
The project area consists of primarily man-dominated and forested areas. The forested
areas provide cover and protection for many indigenous wildlife species nearby the
project area. The forested areas adjacent the Lumber River and associated ecotones serve
as valuable habitat, providing all the necessary components (food, water, protective
cover) for mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians.
The animal species present in the man-dominated habitats are opportunistic and capable
of surviving on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation (flowers, leaves, fruits,
and seeds) to both living and dead faunal components. Although no animals were
observed in the field in these areas, raccoon (Procyon lotor), Virginia opossum
(Didelphis virginiana), several species of mice (Peromyscus sp.), blue jay (Cyanocitta
cristata), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), Northern mockingbird (Mimus
polyglottos), and the American robin (Turdus migratorius) are typical to these disturbed
habitats.
In the Cypress-Gum Swamp community, a Northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), a
prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria citrea), and an American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos) were observed on the day of the site visit. Signs of raccoon (Procyon
lotor) were also observed. Other animals which are typical to this habitat include the
Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), Northern parula warbler (Parula americana),
pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), barrel owl (Strix varia), Eastern ribbon snake
(Thamnophis sauritus), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), beaver (Castor canadensis), and the
white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus).
Aquatic:
The Lumber River supports aquatic invertebrates and several species of fish for
recreational fishing. Due to the depth and siltation in this river, the macroinvertebrate
community is restricted to the shallow areas along the river banks. Due to the depth of
the river, the macroinvertebrate community was not sampled. Fish found in the Lumber
River include large mouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis
auritus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), black banded sunfish (Enneacanthus
chaetodon), coastal shiner (Notropis petersoni), dusty shiner (Notropis cummingsae),
golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoliucas), sand shiner (Notropis stramineus), sandbar
shiner (Notropis scepticus), long nose gar (Lepisosteus osseus), snail bullhead (Ictalurus
brunneus), spotted sucker (Minytrema melanops), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus),
and flat bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus). The belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon) is
typical to this habitat.
The river and adjacent banks also provide suitable benthic and riparian habitat for
amphibians and aquatic reptiles such as the brown water snake (Natrix taxispilota),
Eastern cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus piscivorus), snapping turtle (Chelydra
serpentina) and Southern leopard frog (Rana utricularia).
Physical Resources
Soil
The topography of the project area is characterized as rolling hills to flat with gently
sloping banks along the major streams. Project area elevation is approximately 67 meters
(220 feet).
According to the General Soil Map for Scotland County (MRCS, 1966), the area within
the river and along the river banks (within the eastern/Scotland County portion of the
project area) consists of Lumbee-Johns-Okenee association which is described as nearly
level, somewhat poorly drained to very poorly drained soils on stream terraces.
According to the General Soil Map for Hoke County (MRCS, 1984) the area within the
river and along the river banks (within the western/Hoke County portion of the project
area) consists of Johnston soils which are described as nearly level, very poorly drained
soils that are loamy or sandy throughout, found on flood plains. These soil types were
confirmed in the field. The soils in the project area are mapped as Swamp.
Water
The proposed bridge replacement project crosses the Lumber River and lies within the
Lumber River drainage basin. The Lumber River flows south through the proposed
project area with a width of 24.7 meters (81.0 feet). The Lumber River has a
classification of WS-IV Sw HQW from the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management (NCDEM). Class WS-IV indicates waters protected as water supplies
which are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds; suitable for all Class
C uses. Class C indicates the river's suitability for aquatic life propagation and survival,
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, agriculture and other uses requiring waters of
lower quality. The classification of Sw indicates Swamp waters which are waters which
have low velocities and other natural characteristics which are different from adjacent
streams. The classification of HQW indicates 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 NCDEM Classification Index number for the
Lumber River is 14-(3).
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps for
Scotland County (1988) and Hoke County (1989) indicate the project area lies in Zone A,
where no base flood elevations have been determined.
The NCDEM has data from the Lumber River at SR 1404. Benthic macroinvertebrates,
or benthos, are organisms that live in and on the bottom substrates of rivers and streams.
The use of benthos data has proven to be a reliable tool as benthic macroinvertebrates are
sensitive to subtle changes in water quality. Criteria have been developed to assign
bioclassifications ranging from "Poor" to "Excellent" to each benthic sample based on the
number of taxa present in the intolerant groups Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and
Trichoptera (EPT). Different criteria have been developed for different ecoregions
(mountains, piedmont, coastal) within North Carolina. Data from the Lumber River at
the SR 1404 sampling station taken in September 1991 indicated a bioclassification of
"Excellent". Data from the same location in 1986 and 1985 also indicated a
bioclassification of "Excellent".
The NCDEM also uses the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) as another
method to determine general water quality. The method was developed for assessing a
stream's biological integrity by examining the structure and health of its fish community.
The scores derived from the index are a measure of the ecological health of the waterbody
and may not necessarily directly correlate to water quality. There is no NCIBI data from
the Lumber River.
The Scotland County Watershed Ordinance (1993) and the Hoke County Watershed
Ordinance (1991) provide regulations to limit the exposure of watersheds in Scotland and
Hoke Counties to pollution. The Critical Area is the area adjacent to a water supply
intake or reservoir where risk associated with pollution is greater than from the remaining
portions of the watershed. The watershed maps for both counties indicate that the project
area is within a Critical Area.
Table 1 describes the stream characteristics of the Lumber River observed in the vicinity
of the proposed bridge replacement project.
TABLE 1
STREAM CHARACTERISTICS AND ECOLOGICAL
CLASSIFICATIONS
Characteristic Description
Substrate Not visible
Current Flow Slow
Channel Width 24.7 meters (81.0 feet)
Water Depth >1.5 meters (5 feet)
Water Color Turbid/ tan in coloring
Water Odor None
Aquatic Vegetation None
Adjacent Vegetation Sweetgum, tulip poplar,
blackwillow, bald cypress
Wetlands 0.11 hectare (0.26 acre)
Jurisdictional Topics
Wetlands:
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Waters of the United States are regulated by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE).
Wetlands will be impacted by the subject project as the Lumber River is surrounded by
riverine swamp forest throughout the project area. Investigation into wetland occurrence
in the project impact area was conducted using methods of the 1987 Wetland Delineation
Manual.
Wetland impacts due to the project will be approximately 0.11 hectare (0.26 acre) if an
off-site detour is used (Alternative 1); or approximately 0.35 hectare (0.80 acre) of
impact if the roadway is realigned (Alternative 2).
Project construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on jurisdictional surface
waters. Anticipated surface water impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the USACOE.
Approximately 0.04 hectare (0.11 acre) of jurisdictional surface water impacts may occur
due to the Alternative 1 and approximately 0.06 hectare (0.16 acre) of jurisdictional
surface water impacts may occur due to the Alternative 2.
Protected Species:
Federally Protected Species:
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) are
protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended. Candidate species do not receive protection under the Act, but are
mentioned due to potential vulnerability. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
lists six federally protected species for Scotland County and five federally protected
species for Hoke County as of the August 23, 1996 listing. These species are listed in
Tables 2 and 3, respectively.
TABLE 2
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR SCOTLAND COUNTY
Scientific Name North Carolina
Common Name Status
Alligator mississippiensis
(American alligator) T (S/A)
Picoides borealis
(red-cockaded woodpecker) E
Lysimachia asperulaefolia
(rough-leaved loosestrife) E
Oxypolis canbyi
(Canby's dropwort) E
Rhus michauxii
(Michaux's sumac) E
Schwalbea americana
(American chaffseed) E
Denotes threatened due to Similarity of Appearance.
TABLE 3
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR HOKE COUNTY
Scientific Name North Carolina
(Common Name) Status
Picoides borealis
(red-cockaded woodpecker) E
Neonympha mitchellii francisci
(Saint Francis' satyr) E
Lysimachia asperulaefolia
(rough-leaved loosestrife) E
Rhus michauxii
(Michaux's sumac) E
Schwalbea americana
(American chaffseed) E
10
Brief descriptions of each species' characteristics, habitat requirements, and relationship
to the proposed project are discussed below.
American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis)
Status: T (S/A)
Family: Crocodylidae
Listed: 6/4/87
The American alligator is a large [1.8 to 3.7 meters (6 to 12 feet) long] rough-backed
reptile with a broad, rounded snout. Its fourth tooth on the lower jaw fits into a notch in
the upper jaw. This distinguishes the American alligator from the American crocodile
which has its fourth tooth exposed when the jaw is closed. American alligators are
sexually mature at about 6 or 7 years of age. Nesting occurs in late spring or early
summer when females produce approximately 35 to 40 eggs. American alligators inhabit
fresh to slightly brackish river systems, canals, lakes, ponds, swamps, bayous, and coastal
marshes.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
A designation of T S/A indicates that this species is listed due to its similar appearance to
another species which is Threatened or Endangered. Species designated T S/A are not
afforded legal protection under Section 7. Habitat exists within the project area for this
species; however, no evidence of American alligators was observed during the site visit
(e.g., nests, tracks). A search of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database
showed no recorded occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. It can be
concluded that construction of the proposed project will not impact the American
alligator.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Status: E
Family: Picidae
Listed: 10113/70
The red-cockaded woodpecker is a small [18 to 20 centimeters (7 to 8 inches) long] bird
with black and white horizontal stripes on its back, a black cap and a large white cheek
patch. The male has a small red spot or "cockade" behind the eye. The preferred nesting
habitat of the red-cockaded woodpecker is open stands of pines with a minimum age of
60 to 120 years. Longleaf pines (Pinus palustris) are preferred for nesting; however,
other mature pines such as loblolly (Pinus taeda) may be utilized. Typical nesting areas,
or territories, are pine stands of approximately 81 hectares (200 acres), however, nesting
has been reported in stands as small as 24 hectares (60 acres).. Preferred foraging habitat
is pine and pine-hardwood stands of 32 to 50 hectares (80 to 125 acres) with a minimum
age of 30 years and a minimum diameter of 25 centimeters (10 inches). The red-
cockaded woodpecker utilizes these areas to forage for insects such as ants, beetles,
wood-boring insects, caterpillars, as well as seasonal wild fruit.
11
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
This habitat type does not exist in the project area; there are no stands of old growth pines
within or adjacent to the study area. No red-cockaded woodpeckers were observed
during the site visit. A search of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database
showed no recorded occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. It can be
concluded that construction of the proposed project will not impact the red-cockaded
woodpecker.
Saint Francis' satyr (Neonympha mitchellii francisci)
Status: E
Family: Nymphalidae
Listed: 1/26/95
The Saint Francis' satyr is a small, dark brown butterfly with a wing-span of 34 to 44
millimeters (0.01 to 0.02 inch). It has conspicuous, round to oval eyespots on its wings
which have a dark maroon brown center and a straw-yellow border. The annual life cycle
of this butterfly is bivoltine which means it has two adult flights or generations per year.
Larval host plants include grasses, sedges and rushes. The Saint Francis' satyr occurs in
wide, wet meadows dominated by sedges and grasses. It is typically found in areas
affected by some form of disturbance such as frequent fires and beaver impoundments.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
This habitat type does not exist in the project area; there are no areas which appear to be
subject to frequent burning or beaver activity. No specimens were observed during the
site visit. A search of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database showed no
recorded occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. It'can be concluded that
construction of the proposed project will not impact Saint Francis' satyr.
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia)
Status: E
Family: Primulaceae
Listed: 6/12/87
The rough-leaved loosestrife is a rhizomatous perennial herb with whorls of 3 to 4 leaves
encircling a slender stem. This plant reaches 0.3 to 0.6 meter (1 to 2 feet) in height.
Showy yellow flowers are produced from mid-May through June and fruits are present
from July through October. The rough-leaved loosestrife is endemic to the coastal plain
and sandhills of North Carolina and South Carolina. It occurs in open ecotones (edges)
between longleaf pine uplands and pond pine pocosins, on moist to seasonally saturated
sands, and on shallow organic soils overlaying sand. It has also been found on deep peat
in the low shrub community of large Carolina bays.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
12
This habitat type does not exist in the project area; there are no areas of long-leaf pines
or adjacent pond-pine pocosins. No specimens were observed during the site visit. A
search of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database showed no recorded
occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. It can be concluded that
construction of the proposed project will not impact the rough-leaved loosestrife.
Canby's dropwort (Oxypolis canbyi)
Status: E
Family: Apiaceae
Listed: 2/25/91
Canby's dropwort is a perennial, rhizomatous plant which has quill-like leaves. This
plant, which gives off a slight dill fragrance, reaches 0.8 to 1.2 meters (2.6 to 3.9 feet) in
height. White, five-parted flowers are present from May through August. These small
flowers are present in compound umbels. Canby's dropwort occurs in clay-based
Carolina bays and coastal plain habitats including wet meadows, wet pineland savannahs,
ditches, sloughs, and around the edges of Cypress-pine ponds. These plants prefer open
bays or ponds with little canopy cover and soils with medium to high organic content.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
This habitat type does not exist in the project area; there are no open areas with little
canopy cover. No specimens were observed during the site visit. A search of the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program database showed no recorded occurrences of this
species within the project vicinity. It can be concluded that construction of the proposed
project will not impact Canby's dropwort.
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii)
Status: E
Family: Anacardiacene
Listed: 2/28/89
Flowers Present: April - June
Michaux's sumac is a densely hairy shrub with erect stems which are 0.3 to 0.9 meters (1
to 3 feet) in height. The shrub's compound leaves are narrowly winged at their base, dull
on their tops, and veiny and slightly hairy on their bottoms. Each leaflet is finely toothed
on its edges. The flowers are greenish-yellow to white and are 4-5 parted. Michaux's
sumac is found in sandy or rocky open woods in association with basic soils. This plant
survives best in areas where some form of disturbance has provided an open area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
This habitat type does not exist in the project area; there are no open areas and the soils
are too acidic for this species. No specimens were observed during the site visit. A
search of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database showed no recorded
occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. It can be concluded that
13
construction of the proposed project will not impact Michaux's sumac.
American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana)
Status: E
Family: Scrophulariaceae
Listed: 9/29/92
American chaffseed is a densely hairy, erect perennial herb with unbranched stems.
Leaves are alternate, entire, elliptic to lance-shaped, and stalkless. Large, purplish-
yellow, tubular flowers are produced from April to June in the south and from June to
mid-July in the north. The American chaffseed occurs in sandy, acidic seasonally moist
to dry soils. It is found in open, moist pine flatwoods, fire-maintained savannas and other
open grass-sedge systems. Most of the surviving populations are in areas that are subject
to frequent fires.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
This habitat type does not exist in the project area; there are no open areas which appear
to be subject to frequent burning. No specimens were observed during the site visit. A
search of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database showed no recorded
occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. It can be concluded that
construction of the proposed project will not impact the American chaffseed.
Federal Species of Concern:
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species
Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as Threatened of Endangered. Species designated as FSC are
defined as taxa which may or may not be listed in the future. These species were
formerly Candidate 2 (C2) species or species under consideration for listing for which
there is insufficient information to support listing. Tables 4 and 5 include listed FSC
species for Scotland and Hoke Counties and their state classification.
14
TABLE 4
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN FOR
SCOTLAND COUNTY
Scientific Name North Carolina Suitable
(Common Name) Status Habitat
Aimophila aestivalis
(Bachman's sparrow) Sc No
Heterodon simus
(Southern hognose snake) SR No
Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus"
(Northern pine snake) Sc No
Rana capito capito
(Carolina gopher frog) SC No
Astragalus michauxii
(sandhills milkvetch) C No
Eupatorium resinosum
(resinous boneset) T-SC No
Kalmia cuneata
(white wicky) E-SC No
Lilium iridollae*
(sandhills bog lily) C Yes
Parthenium radfordii
(Wavyleaf wild quinine) WL No
Potamogeton confervoides
(Conferva pondweed) C No
Rhexia aristosa
(awned meadowbeauty) T No
Solidago verna
(Spring-flowering goldenrod) E/PT No
Stylisma pickeringii var pickeringii
(Pickering's dawnflower) E No
Tofieldia glabra
(Carolina asphodel) C No
Lindera subcoriacea
(bog spicebush) E No
Lobelia boykinii
(Boykin's lobelia) C No
Xyris scabrifolia
(roughleaf yellow-eyed grass) C No
Campylopus carolinae
(Savanna campylopus) C No
15
TABLE 5
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN FOR
HOKE COUNTY
Scientific Name North Carolina Suitable
(Common Name) Status Habitat
Aimophila aestivalis
(Bachman's sparrow) SC No
Heterodon simus*
(Southern hognose snake) SR No
Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus**
(Northern pine snake) Sc No
Rana capito capito
(Carolina gopher frog) SC No
Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana
(Georgia indigo-bush) E No
Astragalus michauxii
(sandhills milkvetch) C No
Dionaea muscipula
(venus flyrap) C-SC No
Eupatorium resinosum
(resinous boneset) C No
Kalmia cuneata
(white wicky) E-SC No
Lilium iridollae
(sandhills bog lily) C Yes
Lindera subcoriacea
(bog spicebush) E No
Litsea aestivalis
(pondspice) C Yes
Lobelia boykinii
(Boykin's lobelia) C No
Myriophyllum laxum
(loose watermilfoil) T No
Oxypolis ternata
(Savanna cowbane) WL No
Parnassia caroliniana
(Carolina grass-of-parnassus) E No
Parthenium radfordii
(wavyleaf wild quinine) WL No
16
TABLE 5
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN FOR
HOKE COUNTY (continued)
Scientific Name North Carolina Suitable
(Common Name) Status Habitat
Potamogeton confervoides
(conferva pondweed) C No
Pteroglossaspis ecristata
(spiked medusa) E No
Pyxidanthera barbulata var. brevifolia
(sandhills pyxie-moss) T No
Rhexia aristosa
(awned meadow beauty) T No
Rhynchospora crinipes
(Alabama beaksedge) E Yes
Solidago verna
(Spring-flowering goldenrod) E No
Stylisma pickeringii var pickeringii
(Pickering's dawnflower) E No
Tofieldia glabra
(Carolina asphodel) C No
Xyris scabrifolia
(roughleaf yellow-eyed grass) C No
Notes for Tables 4 and 5:
* Indicates no specimens have been found in at least 20 years.
** Indicates obscure record - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
NC Status: E, T, C, SC, SR, WL, PT, NL denote Endangered, Threatened, Candidate,
Special Concern, Significantly Rare, Watch List, Proposed Threatened, Not Listed,
respectively.
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.). North Carolina Natural Heritage Program records indicate no
known populations of the state listed species occurring within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of
the project site.
17
Impacts
Biotic community impacts resulting from project construction are addressed separately as
terrestrial impacts and aquatic impacts. However, impacts to terrestrial communities,
particularly in locations exhibiting gentle slopes, can result in the aquatic community
receiving heavy sediment loads as a consequence of erosion. It is important to
understand that construction impacts may not be restricted to the communities in which
the construction activity occurs
Of the three community types in the project area, the Cypress-Gum Swamp community
will receive the greatest impact from construction, resulting in the loss of existing
habitats and displacement and mortality of faunal species in residence. Table 6 details
the anticipated impacts to terrestrial and aquatic communities by habitat type.
TABLE 6
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO TERRESTRIAL
AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES IN HECTARES (ACRES)
Bridge No. 147 Man- Cypress- Aquatic Combined
Replacement Dominated Gum Swamp Community Total
Impacts Community Community
Alternative 1 0.14(0.35) 0.11(0.26) 0.04(0.11) 0.29(0.72)
Alternative 2 0.13(0.31) 0. 16(0.40) 0.06(0.16) 0.35(0.87)
NOTES: Impacts are based on 24.4-meter (80-foot) Right-of-Way limits.
The aquatic community in the study area exists within the Lumber River. The proposed
bridge replacement (including a temporary detour) will result in the disturbance of
approximately 0.10 hectare (0.27 acres) of stream bottom. Construction and approach
work will likely increase sediment loads in the river in the short term. Construction
related sedimentation can be harmful to local populations of invertebrates, which are an
important part of the aquatic food chain. Potential adverse effects to surface waters will
be minimized through the use of best management practices, High Quality Water
guidelines, and the utilization of erosion and sediment control measures as specified in
the State-approved Erosion and Sediment Control Program.
Permanent impacts to the water resources will result due to the placement of support
structures or a culvert in the river channel. Sedimentation and erosion control measures
(Best Management Practices and Sediment Control Guidelines) will be strictly enforced
during the construction stage of this project. Grass berms along construction areas help
decrease erosion and allow potentially toxic substances such as engine fluids and
particulate rubber to be absorbed into the soil before these substances reach waterways.
18
ti
Permit Coordination
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.O.E.
1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged
or fill material into "Waters of the United States".
Since the subject project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion, it is likely that this
project will be subject to the Nationwide Permit Provisions of 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. However, a final
determination regarding mitigation requirements rests with the USACOE. 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.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope
and lack of substantial environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or
natural environment with the use of the current North Carolina Department of
Transportation standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No
change in land use is expected to result from the construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-Way acquisition
will be limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed
alternative.
19
V,
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 Liquid 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(f) evaluation satisfies the requirements of Section 4(f).
Concurrence with the programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation by the National Park Service
and the North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation is 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(f) of the Department
of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended.
To comply with those requirements, the North Carolina Department of Transportation
provided documentation on the subject project for submittal to the North Carolina State
Historic Preservation Office. There are no structures over fifty years of age in the Area of
Potential Effect (APE), depicted in Figure 2. Correspondence with the State Historic
Preservation Officer (see Appendix) indicates that no National Register-listed or eligible
properties are located within the area of potential effect.
Since there are no properties either listed on or eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places within the APE, no further compliance with Section 106, with respect to
architectural resources, is required.
In response to a scoping letter from the North Carolina Department of Transportation, the
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, in a memorandum dated June 19, 1996 (see
Appendix), recommended that "no archaeological investigation be conducted in
connection with this project." Therefore, no archaeological work was conducted for the
project.
This project has been coordinated with the United States Soil Conservation Service. The
Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impact to prime farmland of all land acquisition and construction
projects. There are no soils classified as prime, unique, or having state or local
importance in the vicinity of the project. Therefore, the project will not involve the direct
conversion of farmland acreage within these classifications.
20
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the
regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
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 Plan (SIP) for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 213.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment
requirements for highway traffic noise of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulation (CFR),
Part 772 and for air quality (1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the National
Environmental Policy Act) and no additional reports are required.
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 and Hoke Counties are both participants 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 buildings with floor elevations below the 100-
year flood level.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse
environmental impacts will result from implementation of the project.
21

1 1122 11
Edinburgh h
p w 1101
1.9 .2 1.0
,400

1403 ^ 120 Ja0'
401 12
? 1101
0.
)
/ .
` ,? `'J
1410 .4 •?
,
P 1119
ll
urce
V :
1 40 y
.9 4
? 5 j 6 8
1 x 1 1 + a 1
FAS.5

1405
0

•
1104 113
1118
, 110 y
7N ® AGRAM 1116
p POP. 617 '6 14 -• m
140 BRIDGE NO 1103
. 34 9 a a t
a 1101 N 1117
16 P 41
a_ 9
` 1102 110a
Q 11 18
h O
?
Lill
y
Y
14T7 1407 4
1.1 .2

4 1104
1 100 N
1418 P
1416
6. cw 1106
l
? 1421

1407 • 1100

"? 1 107
1105
2
1425 Q 11.06
1403 1 e.,
rn
0- ,era Pines z e _
?Ih Iv?d sr,P
1426 1403 r "FORT 8"GG Miurnay RESE V
211
'? bhley Heights
1427 p. 9 427 S
CFI O I(
E
\ \ b 1427
3 1433 M
in
-
man 2 Montrose
* 13 4
.6 4
..
(„) l
1407 r 22 ZR C', Ti erland o Rockfis

Raeford 1 f` N 1
+

T . jgnac 15
i•l
` 501 51 h 5 5 Atabl?
b
?
OU orrach 2U G
SCOT a Lumr
Antioch 13r
1 21
Old Hundred g- - - _ 5
aure 2L urinbur
I k
2 79
nffir
1 I.
.Gibs FIGURE I
anon 19 i
ro 5 1 h
IS 0
401
H asty?
LEGEND
Studied Detour Route
AN North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
SCOTLAND AND HOKE COUNTIES
BRIDGE NO. 34 ON SR 1404 & SR 1104
OVER LUMBER RIVER
B-3044
0 kllomelsrs 1 •6 kilometer 34.2
6 miles 1.0 miles 2.0
Scotland and Hoke Counties
Bridge No. 34 on SR 1404 & SR 1104
Over Lumber River
B-3044
SIDE VIEW
EAST APPROACH
LOOKING WEST
WEST APPROACH
LOOKING EAST
FIGURE 3
r
v? o
o
Ea
o a
6 ? U)
b w

o ? p .
U
? ]
V

a :
c
W d,
~
rT.

' q;r
x?w
E qM
a
w m
?O
N N v 0.8
w 00 ra z M
Z a m
V
c ? d
?a?
wbb rte" w
o
x
ZE-0. Z O
d
w
E-
U A
® rn rz

n M

cr
a
"' _
°
o
LLJ
O O

W
N
N
= U' =
Z W
UN

O OC
o
ff CL
2
o

L
Q
CL v f

3
CL

N E
N a M O

r
v
E

IF E
N x

IF
r
x

R
d'
V? o
W
..
z
??
: w
a
u 0 as W
9

w n o W
E 9 a

o
N0 >
r
? o

xa,a w

0--
l ea 0

q z
mom z°
? d
°
z >
z°Ha z
a
o
w
Q
o
_
V x
?o
®

C*
M W
r,.
Z
a
J
W
oC
D
V

cC
N

O

O

W
N
J

0
FL
y
.
I- V
W
J
J

ch O
V
M W V

O J
Q o 0

M V ? N
{L
4n II II
Q L O
U j
O? N
Q .- n

_W Z
0
O
0 -0 Z
N D

F14
IMPTOWN
ROAD

/
'f
li
M ter`"i,
`?? 11as1
1 G
I4G3

1? \
l?
\1
\1
\1
-' 11
•?? \? , ??/ ?? `ate "f
ko:
1 // J \\\ _\\ Pii

1 .. j
L.•.

.. .:...::......
:. ...:..............::.
.... ... .....
.... .......
... .........
3RIDG • - ?' ' '
EN0.34. ............
.. . ..........
..........:: ..
® I North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
SCOTLAND AND HOKE COUNTIES
BRIDGE NO. 34 ON SR 1404 & SR 1104
OVER LUMBER RIVER
B-3044
FIGURE 6
?. Manm' ??
4¢Ww?.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
June 19, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook `
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Group X Bridge Replacement Projects
Bridge 34 on SR 1404 over Lumber River, Scotland
and Hoke Counties, B-3044, ER 96-9095
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
CE'v
JUN 2 1 1996
Thank you for your letter of April 1, 1996, concerning the above project.
On June 5, 1996, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with representatives of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to view the project aerial
photograph. Based upon our review of the aerial, it appears that there are no
structures over fifty years of age within the project's area of potential effect. We,
therefore, recommend that no historic architectural survey be conducted for this
project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend that
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ??V
Y ,
Federal Aid # tr-z 1,4.14 ( 3? TIP # x''704-4 County
5?ru+.a c?H ou E
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Prcje t Description Y-F-MAGty 'MRtDGE No. 34 oa gQ. 1404 ?grc 1to4 ov><=z ?,,??
DIVER 01141VO-r, (pup y.)
On J?^N+?S 11'1'1b representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal High«-ay Administration (FHwA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
revic«•ed the subject project at
A seeping 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 effects.
? there arc no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effects.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) iNithin the project's area of potential effects,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as arc considered not eligible
for National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
? there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
Signed:
Rcpresc ?, ? DOT Date
4
FHVN he Div ision A stmtor, or other Federal Agency Date
Representative, PO f
Date
L / ?o
State Historic Preservation Officer l
Date
If a survey report is prepared, a tinal copy of this form and the attached list «ill be included.

SCOTLAND COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
A.B. GIBSON EDUCATION CENTER
A
Office of the Superintendent
322 South Main Street
Laurinburg, NC 28352
910-276-1138 FAX [phone]
16
A.

April 19, 1996
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Divison of Highways
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Mr. Vick:
'APR 2 5 Mt
tXVISION C"
Ar
L - I
This letter is in reference to your letter dated April 1 1996 regarding the replacement of bridge on SR
I *)AVSR 1104 over the Lumber River on the Scotland/Hoke County line. Scotland County Schools
does not include this bridge in any scheduled bus route and replacement should not cause any
problems for our system.
Thank you for the notification and we would like to request that we be given notification when the
project begins. We notifry schools in such cases for their information to avoid problems.
Sincerely;

Wiiyuri %"'Ccari
Transportation Director
cc: Dr. John Batchelor
an investment in the future
?Lr
i
B- 3oq{

HOKE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
JOHN D. MCALLISTER
ROBERT L. CONOLY
CHARLOTTE R. KELLY
LELAND D. STROTHER
ANN J. HARDIN
Don D. Steed, Superintendent
RAEFORD. NORTH CAROLINA 28376
April 4, 1996
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:
This letter is in response to your letter of April 1996.
POST OFFICE BOX 370
310 WOOLEY STREET
TELEPHONE
910-875-4106
FACSIMILE
910.875-3362

ASR U R 1996
[)NISIG" I OF
? 1-11GHW f'?YS v
P
\N?IRONh??.
1. How many buses cross this structure during the course of the day?
Answer: We have no buses that use this bridge.
2. Provided travel service is maintained during project construction, would there be
any other cause for concern regarding disruption to school bus service?
Answer: We have no problem as long as we are able to get to the last paved
driveway before the bridge. This is our last stop on this road and
also the turnaround.
3. Are you aware of any other issues or do you have other school related concerns
that may be relative to the project planning process?
Answer: We are not aware of any other concerns.
If you have any other questions or need additional information, please contact Robert
Creech at [phone].
Sincerely,
?'L •C??S tt?
Don D. Steed
Superintendent

1
c: Robert Creech

COUNTY OF SCOTLAND
Department of Inspections and Zoning
P. O. Box 489
Laurinburg, NC 28353
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
April 30, 1996
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 2501
Raleigh, NC 27611
+-3°4.1
/O' S, C
y n
44
1996
S/C
Re: NCDOT Bridge Replacement Project: Bridge on SR1404/SR1104 over
Lumber river, Scotland/Hoke Counties; T.I.P. No. B-3044
Dear Mr. Vick:
This is in reply to your request in connection with DOT's intention to replace
the above-mentioned bridge.
1. The project is consistent with the County's long range planning goals.
2. We are not aware of any opposition, at the present time, organized or
otherwise, to this project.
3. As far as we know, the main sensitive issue associated with this project is
what happens to the river itself. [See items 4 and 11.1
4. The project is in a sensitive property -- The Lumber River State Park.
Contact person is James Sessoms, telephone [phone].
5. There are no proposed commercial or residential developments within the
4
11
project area.
6. Tax maps are available for the area surrounding the proposed project The
county has no topographic maps available, but does have orthophoto
coverage.
Letter to H. Franklin Vick
Page 2
7. Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), published by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, are available for the project area.
8. The proposed project or its construction will not seriously affect local
emergency routes.
9. There is a "Land Development Plan" available for Scotland County.
10. The project lies on the boundary line between the zoning jurisdiction of
Scotland County and the Town of Wagram's extraterritorial jurisdiction. The
zoning classification is "Residental-Agricultural" in both cases.
11. The only other issue that might be pertinent to the project is the proposed
development of the Lumber River State Park (Lumber River State Park
Commission). Quite a few citizens in the project area are environtmentaly
oriented and highly favor the park, they are intimately concerned about
anything that disrupts the river and its environs.
Sincerely,
. f
Robert E. Reiman
Planning Specialist
.a
-e---?T P
r'
SEAL
C of
0
U H
N 0-
T K
Y E
Michael Wood
County Manager
Board of County
Commissioners
L.E. McLaughlin, Jr.
Chairman
Riley M. Jordan, M.D.
Vice Chairman
.
James A. Leach
Thomas P. Howell
Jean Hodges
Neil Yarborough
Attorney
April 23, 1996
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Manager, Planning and
Environmental Branch
NC Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O.25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
RE: NCDOT Bridge Replacement Project: Bridge on SR 1104 (known as Spring Hill Road in Hoke
County) over Lumber River in Hoke County - TIP No. B-3044
Dear Mr. Vick:
The attached pages summarize our response to your request for information regarding the above
noted project.
We support your efforts in the "environmental evaluation" process and hope the project can be
started as soon as possible.
Please let us know if we may be of further service to you on this project.
Sincerely,
I?L?z?4
Michael N. Wood
Hoke County Manager
Attach
cf.
Mitchell Byrd, Emergency Services
Djuna Reeves, Communications
William Coxe, Inspections
Linda Revels, Zoning
Al Mitchell, Planning
Hoke County Board of Commissioners
V C S?

j , g v1,3/0N.
IG OF
Post Office Box 266 237 North Main Street Raeford, North Carolina 28376
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]

RE: NCDOT Bridge Replacement Project: Bridge on SR 1104 - TIP B-3044
Survey Questionnaire Responses
1. Is the project consistent with the County's long-range planning goals?
Response: Yes. Although there are other highway needs in Hoke County, this project is necessary to
continue adequate access across the Lumber River to Scotland County.
2. Are you aware of any opposition, organized or otherwise, to this project:
Response: No.
3. Are there any sensitive issues associated with this project?
Response: Yes. The area is within a protected watershed area governed by the State. Also, it is within a
designated floodplain area.
4. Are there any sensitive properties (parks, public lands, playgrounds, etc.) in close proximity to the proposed bridge
crossing?
Response: No
5. Are there any proposed commercial or residential developments within the project area?
Response: No
6. Are tax maps available for the area surrounding the proposed project? Also, are County topographic maps available
in the vicinity of the project?
Response: Yes, tax maps are available. No, we do not have topographic coverage.
7. Are regulatory floodway and 100-year floodplain maps available for the project area?
Response: Yes. Community Panel Number 370397 0125 B, prepared by FEMA is available.
8. Will the proposed project or its construction affect local emergency routes such as fire, rescue, etc.?
Response: Yes. This area of Hoke County is served by the Lilly Fire District which is located in Scotland
County. Access to the immediate area of the bridge could be adversely affected temporarily. Our emergency
personnel should be informed when the project is started.
9. Is there a Land Use Plan or Master Plan available for Hoke County?
Response: Yes.
10. What are the existing and future zoning classifications on the area surrounding the proposed project?
Response: The area is presently zoned RA-20 Residential -Agricultural District. This district allows for
residential lots with a minimum of 20,000 square feet. There are no changes expected at this time.
11. Are you aware of any other issues that may be relative to the project planning process?
4
Response: No.
?- Zsz? D
State of North Carolina Z-4 O9
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources • •
Division of Environmental Management
-1 James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor 8 - 1) Z.
Jonathan B. Howes. Secretary [D E ?---? N ? 2-1) ?O
A. Preston Howard, Jr.; P.E., Director 5-IS) 89
5 -3 003
April 19, 1996 0 zZ
MEMORANDUM a.
To: Stacy Baldwin
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for Group X Bridge Replacement Projects
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental Management requests that
DOT consider the following generic environmental commitments for bridge
replacements:
A. DEM requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled,
"Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout
design and construction for this project in the area that drains to streams having
WS (water supply), ORW (outstanding resource water), HQW (high quality
water), B (body contact), SA (shellfish water) or Tr (trout water) classifications
to protect existing uses.
B. DEM requests that bridges be replaced in existing location with road closure. If
an on-site detour or road realignment is necessary, the approach fills should be
removed to pre-construction contour and revegetated with native tree species at
320 stems per acre.
C. DEM requests that weep holes not be installed in the replacement bridges in
order to prevent sediment and other pollutants from entering the body of water.
If this is not completely possible, weep holes should not be installed directly
over water.
D. Wetland impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures). If this is not possible, alternatives that minimize wetland
impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts may be required.
E. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands. It is likely that compensatory
mitigation will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
Please be aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts
have not been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
cc: Monica Swihart
Melba McGee
bridges.sco
P.O. Box 29535. Raleigh. North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An L:- -1 r)nnrvtr inity Affirmative Antinn Cmr.L...- ?dl°L roan vnlcri/ 1 (Xr r..u#_r?rv?o mr,r nnrwr Y
el
J '
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY n
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS a ? J /
P.O. BOX 1890 O•
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890 13 -Zc+? 4 Z
REPLY TO R _ Z9 ) ['.
ATTENTION OF May 9, 1996 J
Special Studies and
Flood Plain Services Section
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
O
MAY 1 6 1996
DtVISICN OF
¢ HIGHWAYS O
?ORION
Dear Mr. Vick:
This is in response to your letter of April 1, 1996 subject: "Request for Comments
for Group X Bridge Replacement Projects." The bridge replacement projects are
located in various Piedmont North Carolina counties.
Our comments are enclosed. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these
projects. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
E. Shuford, Jr., P.E..
Acting Chief, Engineering
and Planning Division
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (with enclosure
and incoming correspondence):
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442
Mr. David Cox
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
p^st Off Box 113
Nortnsioe, North Carolina 27 64-0 i 3

l
May 9, 1996
Page 1 of 3

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Request for Comments for Group X Bridge Replacement Projects" in various Piedmont
North Carolina counties
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Bobby L. Willis, Special Studies and Flood Plain
Services Section, at [phone]
These bridges are located within counties or communities which participate in the
National Flood Insurance Program. From the various Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRMs), it appears that both approximate study and detail study streams are involved.
(Detail study streams are those with 100-year flood elevations determined and a
floodway defined.) A summary of flood plain information pertaining to these bridges is
contained in the following table. The FIRMs are from the county flood insurance study
unless otherwise noted.
Bridge Route Study Date Of
No. No. County Stream Type Firm
27 SR 2342 Iredell Trib-Third Ck Approx 5/80
91 SR 2417 Mecklenburg W.Br. Rocky R Detail 2/93
31 NC 73 Richmond Buffalo Ck Approx 9/89
359 SR 2911 Randolph Richland Ck. Approx 7/81
127 SR 1673 Stokes Snow Ck. Approx 9/88
147 SR 1953 Chatham Rocky River Approx 7/91
79 SR 2700 Forsyth S Fork Muddy Ck Detail 1/84
178 SR 1907 Iredell Morrison Ck. Detail 9/79
108 US 29 Mecklenburg None-No FI Haz - 2/82
52 SR 1406 Randolph Uharrie R. Approx 7/81
34 SR 1404 Scotland Lumber R. Approx 12/88
34 SR 1104 Hoke Lumber R Approx 3/89
* within city of Statesville jurisdiction. Flood map is a city FIRM.
** within city of Charlotte jurisdiction. Flood map is a city FIRM.
Enclosed, for your information on the detail study streams, is a copy of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency's "Procedures for 'No Rise' Certification for Proposed
Developments in Regulatory Floodways". In addition, we suggest coordination with the
respective counties or communities for compliance with their flood plain ordinances and
any changes, if required, to their flood insurance maps and reports.
May 9, 1996
Page 2 of 3
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Raleigh, Asheville, and Wilmington Field
Offices, Regulatory Branch (Individual POC's are listed following the comments.)
All work restricted to existing high ground will not require prior Federal permit
authorization. However, Department of the Army permit authorization pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the
discharge of excavated or fill material in waters of the United States or any adjacent
and/or isolated wetlands in conjunction with your proposed bridge replacements,
including disposal of construction debris.
The replacement of these bridges may be eligible for nationwide permit
authorization [33 CFR 330.5(a)(23)] as a Categorical Exclusion, depending upon the
amount of jurisdictional wetlands to be impacted by a project and the construction
techniques utilized. Please be reminded that prior to utilization of nationwide permits
within any of the 25 designated mountain trout counties, you must obtain a letter with
recommendation(s) from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and a
letter of concurrence from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Engineer. The mountain trout designation carries discretionary authority for the
utilization of nationwide permits. In addition, any jurisdictional impacts associated with
temporary access roads or detours, cofferdams, or other dewatering structures should
be addressed in the Categorical Exclusion documentation in order to be authorized by
Nationwide Permit No. 23 (NWP 23). If such information is not contained within the
Categorical Exclusion documentation, then other DA permits may be required prior to
construction activities.
Although these projects may qualify for NWP 23 as a categorical exclusion, the
project planning report should contain sufficient information to document that the
proposed activity does not have more than a minimal individual or cumulative impact on
the aquatic environment. Accordingly, we offer the following comments and
recommendations to be addressed in the planning report:
a. The report should contain the amount of permanent and temporary impacts to
waters and wetlands as well as a description of the type of habitat that will be affected.
b. Off-site detours are always preferable to on-site (temporary) detours in
wetlands. If an on-site detour is the recommended action, justification should be
provided.
c. Project commitments should include the removal of all temporary fills from
waters and wetlands. In addition, if undercutting is necessary for temporary detours,
the undercut material should be stockpiled to be used to restore the site.
May 9, 1996
Page 3 of 3
s
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Request for Comments for Group X Bridge Replacement Projects" in various Piedmont
North Carolina counties
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: (Continued)
d. The report should address impacts to recreational navigation (if any) if a bridge
span will be replaced with a box culvert.
e. The report should address potential impacts to anadromous fish passage if a
bridge span will be replaced with culverts.
At this point in time, construction plans were not available for review. When final
plans are complete, including the extent and location of any work within waters of the
United States and wetlands, our Regulatory Branch would appreciate the opportunity to
review those plans for a project-specific determination of DA permit requirements.
For additional information, please contact the following individuals:
Raleigh Field Office -
John Thomas at [phone], Extension 25, for Stokes County
Jean Manuele at [phone], Extension 24, for Randolph and Chatham
Counties
Eric Alsmeyer at [phone], Extension 23, for Forsyth-County
it
Asheville Field Office -
Steve Lund at [phone] for Mecklenburg County
Steve Chapin at [phone] for Iredell County
Wilmington Field Office -
Scott McLendon at [phone] for Scotland/Hoke, (Regulatory Branch
Action ID # 199603287) and Richmond Counties (ID # 199603286)
?T
pCH J
1
ISH .-ND WILDLIFE: SERVICE
Paieigh Fiela Office
Pos. Offiic° Box 3326
Raleigh. Norin Carolina 27636-3%26
In Reply Refer "'c:
FWS/AES/RANC
April 10, 1996
Mr. H. Franklin Vick

P z?
2&ocl r,

F f?

- 2-A
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Subject: Group X Bridge Replacement Projects
Various counties, North Carolina (TIP Nos. 8-2580, 2590, 2609,
2859, 2868, 2942, 2970, 2989, 3003, 3022, 3044)
Dear Mr. Vick:
This responds to your letter of April 1, 1996 requesting information from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for evaluating the potential
environmental impacts of the above-referenced projects. This report provides
scoping information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report also serves
as initial scoping comments to federal and state resource agencies for use in
their permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
Preliminary planning by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
calls for the replacement of eleven bridges in various Piedmont North Carolina
counties.
The Service's mission is to provide the leadership to conserve, protect, and
enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of all
people. Due to staffing limitations, we are unable to provide you with site-
specific comments at this time. However, the following recommendations should
help guide the planning process and facilitate our review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that 4etland impacts be avoided and minimized
to the maximum extent practicable as outlined in the Clean Water Act Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines. Bridge replacements should maintain natural water flows
and circulation regimes without scouring or impeding fish and wildlife passage.
Habitat fragmentation should be minimized by using the existing disturbed
corridor instead of a new alignment. Impact areas should be stabilized by using
appropriate erosion control devices and/or techniques. Wherever appropriate,
construction in sensitive areas should occur outside of anadromous fish spawning
and migratory bird nesting seasons.
We reserve the right to review any required federal or state permits at the time
of public notice issuance. Resource agency coordination should occur early in
the planning process to resolve land use conflicts and minimize delays.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental
documentation for this project include the following (the level of detail should
be commensurate with the degree of environmental impacts) :

e s
A se anc .:e. -=r -e rr.:r, sE ? :o:;EC .; _•
--1 o-J c±t"J`, -n:a _en-.: L; L .ty;
?. ?fin anal.vsis of the alternatives to t1e Dr-)posed project that were
considered. _::cluding a no action alternative;
3. A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within the action
area of the proposed project which may be affected directly or
indirectly;
4. The extent and acreage of waters cf the U.S., including wetlands, that
are to to impacted by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, and/or
draining. Wetland impact acreages should be differentiated by habitat
type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National wetlands
Inventory. Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987
Corns of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers;
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and,-permanent,
that would be likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed
project. Also, an assessment should be included regarding the extent to.
which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to natural
resources and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative
adverse effects;
6. Techniques whicli would be employed to design and construct wetland
crossings, relocate stream channels, and restore, enhance, or create
wetlands for compensatory mitigation;
7. Mitigation measures which would be employed to avoid, minimize, rectify,
reduce, or compensate for habitat value losses associated with the
project. These measures should include a detailed compensatory
mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered, threatened, and
candidate species that are known to occur in Chatham, Forsyth, Hoke, Iredell,
Mecklenburg, Randolph, Richmond, Scotland, and Stokes counties. Habitat
requirements for the Federally-listed species in the project area should be
compared with the available habitat at the project site. If suitable habitat is
present within the action area of the project, field surveys for the species
should be performed, and survey methodologies and results included in the
environmental documentation for this project. In addition to this guidance, the
following information should be included in the environmental document regarding
protected species (the level of detail should be commensurate with the degree of
environmental 'impacts)
;1. A specific description of the proposed action.to be considered;
2. A description and accompanying map of the specific area used in the
analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts;
3. A description of the biology and status of the listed species and of the
associated habitat that may be affected by the action, including the
results of an onsite inspection;
4. An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed species and
associated habitat:
a. Direct and indirect impacts of the project on listed species.
Indirect effects are those that are caused by the proposed action
and are later in time but are still reasonably certain to occur;
b. A discussion of the environmental baseline which includes
interrelated, interdependent, past and present impacts of Federal,
t s
, _ iv2 e;:
.5 t
ar =a
l-rger act'.on and
Znterrelaced actions are those t:-•.t are pa-, r_ of u
?.. ion for Their j':?tificat;on;
c:?:penn on the larger a?..
of `uture state and private acti•lities (not
d' Cumulat_ ?e r impactactls agency involvement, that will ba considered as
requiring
part of future Section 7 consultation);
5. ent of potential effec??;
Summary of evaluation criteria used as a measurem
manner in which the action may affect any listed
abitat including project proposals to
6 A description of the manner h
species or associated
reduce/eliminate adverse effects;
n evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the project. is
7. Based o affect threatened and endangered
not likely to adversely affect or may
species.
species are those plant and animal species for which the Service has to their survival
Candidate ec
undern ies Act
the EndangeredndSp the ESA,
(ESA) information on thedroio hreatenedstatus
propose them as endangered rotection
(ESA) . Although candidate species receive no statutory p
Federal agencies are required to informally confer with the Service on actions
the continued existence of these species or that may destroy
or of concern include those species
likely to jeopardize
modify proposed critical habitat. species
the present time.
for which the Service does n hich do nno t warrant ilistingo at at thti pre butDim
listing proposal or species rotection under the
becomes
information
Species of Concern receive statutory P laces ESA, could ional
the become species candidate under s in the the full future protection endangeredtor threatened fi Forma l sa new survey
available indicating they a and necessi
of the ESA, rodent
re, ate1 spould be p
ecies or their
if its status in the project corridor is un act 'to hcandoid
for the project to avoid any adverse imp
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted or
habitat.
information on species under State protection-
aortunity to comment on this project. Please
c made in the planning process, including
The Service appreciates the op_
continue to advise us of the progress acts of this project.
your official determination of the imp
Sincerely yours,
Gyohn Hefer
ld supervisor
Attachments
cc: NCDEHNR-DEM
NCWRC
USACE
A
F'WS/R4/KDoak/KHD:4-8-96/919-856-4520 ext 19/wp:BAPR96.SCP
Y - --)o 4I.
REVISED APRIL 19, 1995
Hoke County
Birds
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Plants
American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana) - E
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) - E
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia) - E
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for listing as endangered or
threatened, are under status review by the Service. These "Candidate"(C1 and C2) species are not legally
protected under the Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We are providing the below list of candidate
species which may occur within the project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected under the Act. In the meantime,
we would appreciate anything you might do for them.
Birds
Bachman's sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis) - C2
Plants
A beaksedge (Rhvnochospora crinipes) - C2
Awned meadowbeauty (Rhexia aristosa) - C2
Bog spicebush (Lindera subcoriacea) C2
Boykin's lobelia (Lobelia bovkinii) - C2
Carolina grass-of-pamassus (Parnassia caroliniana brevifolia) - C2*
Eulophia (Pteroflossaspis ecristata) - C2
Georgia leadplant (Amorpha oeoroiana oeoroiana) - C2
Loose watermilfoil (Myriophyllum laxum) - C2
Pickering's morning glory (Stylisma pickeringiivar.pickeringii) - C2
Pine barrens boneset (Eupatorium resinosum) - C2
Sandhills milkvetch (Astragalus michauxii) - C2
Savanna cowbane (Oxyvolis ternata) - C2
Savanna leadplant (Amorpha 9eorgiana confusa) - C2
Smooth-bog asphodel (Tofieldia Ig abra) - C2
Spring-flowering goldenrod (Solidaoo vernal - C2
Venus flytrap (Dionaea muscipula) - C2
Wavyleaf wild quinine (Parthenium radfordii) - C2
Well's sandhill pixie-moss (Pyxidanthera barbulata var.
White-wicky (Kalmia cuneata) - C2
*Indicates no specimen in at least 20 years from this county.
-, a-ao-q,
REVISED APRIL 19, 1995
Scotland County
Birds
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Plants
American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana)- E"
Canby's dropwort (Oxygolis canbyi) - E
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) - E
Rough-leaved loosestrifa (Lysimachia asperulaefolia) - E
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for listing as endangered or
threatened, are under status review by the Service. These "Candidate"(Cl and C2) species are not legally
protected under the Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered.. We are providing the below list of candidate
species which may occur within the project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected under the Act. In the meantime,
we would appreciate anything you might do for them.
Reptiles
Northern pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus) -C2
Birds
Bachman's sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis) - C2
Amphibians
Carolina crawfish frog (Rana areolata capitol - C2
Plants
Awned meadowbeauty (Rhexia aristosa) - C2
Bog spicebush (Lindera subcoriacea) -'C2
Boykin's lobelia (Lobelia boykinii) - C2
Conferva pondweed (Potamoveton confervoides) - C2"
Pickering's morning glory (Stylisma pickerinoiivar.pick eringii - C2
Pine barrens boneset (Eupatorium resinosum) - C2
Roughleaf yellow-eyed grass (Xvris scabrifolia) - C2
Sandhills milkvetch (Astraaalus michauxii) - C2
Savanna camylopus (Campylopus carolinae) - C2
Savanna cowbane (Oxypolis temata) - C2
Smooth bog-asphodel (Tofieldia la abra) - C2
Spring-flowering goldenrod (Solidago vernal - C2
Wavyleaf wild quinine (Parthenium radfordii) - C2
Wireleaf dropseed (Sporobolus teretifolius) - C2'
White-wicky (Kalmia cuneata) - C2
11.
"Indicates no specimen in at least 20 years from this county.
'? i

3 -3oy?

TAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
c-rTF N .TI' C.1F.OL':NA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF BICYCLE & GARLAND B. CAP,RETT JR.
PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C 27611-5201
May 30,1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
P and Environmental Branch
FROM: s t. Yates, Director
Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
SUBJECT: Scoping Review for Replacing Bridge No. 34 on SR 1404 over Lumber River,
Scotland-Hoke Counties, TIP No. B-3044
This memorandum is in response to your request for comments on the above project.
There does not appear to be any special need for bicycle accommodations on this project. This
section of roadway does not correspond to a bicycle TIP request, nor is it a designated bicycle
route. At present we have no indication that there is an unusual number of bicyclists on this
roadway. -
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. Please feel free to contact us
regarding this or any other bicycle related matter.
CBY/pp
J
Q•?G??yF
0
JUN v^ 4 1996
i
>c?
PN(WT: (Q1Q17 %-')S2(1A FAY (Q19171S-44?2
0

U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
'ART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) IDate008???jaallu6ation Request
Name Of Protect I FedepWycv Involved
SR 1104, Hoke County,TIP B-3044 CC[t1i
Proposed Land Use ( County And State
Highway, Two Lanes Hoke County, TIP B-3044, NC
'ART I I (To be completed by SCS)
Date Request Rece ed By SCS
1 1 Z lo-;l 1,
woes the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No
(!f no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parrs of this form). Q
-Major Crop(s) Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres: % Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size

Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: %
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used Name Of Local Site Assessment System Date Land Evaluation RetgeZy SCS
'ART I I I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative Site Rating

A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly Site A

0 Site 8
. 7
0 Site C Site D

C. Total Acres In Site .
0.7
'ART IV (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Information
- A: .Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
B. ' Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
PART V (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points)
PART V I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b) Maximum
Points I
1. Area In Nonurban. Use
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
10. On-Farm Investments
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
PART VI I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
I
i
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) I 100
y
Total Site Assessment (From Part V1 above or a local
site assessment) 160
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2lines)
Site Selected:
Reason For Selection-
260
Was A Local S-ie Assessment Used?
Date Of Seiec;ion Yes No ?
r r
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) I DateoOff L 2d2Evaaluuation Request
/96
Name Of Project Federal Agency Involved
SR 1404, cotland County, TIP B-3044 I FHVA
Proposed Land Use County And State
Highway, Two Lanes I Scotland County, TIP B-3044, NC
PART 11 (To be completed by SCS) I Date Request Rece
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes
Of no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parts of this form). ?
Major Crop(s) Farmable )..and In Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres : %
Name Of Land Evaluation c.,..e .
PART I I I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C. Total Acres In Site
PART IV (To be comp/eied by SCS) Land Evaluation Information
A: .Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
D. Percentage of Farmland In r--. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
PART V' (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points)
PART V 1 (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b) ` MPointsm
1. Area In Nonurban Use
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
10. On-Farm Investments
1 1. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Suooort Services I
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
TOTAL SITE ASSESSUIENT POINTS 160
Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size
A
0
Amount Ut Farmland As Defined in
Acres: %
Oate Lan Evaluation Returned By
1-ZS%-- 1a1?
Alternative Site Ratin
kSite 8 Site C S
8
0
D
r HK t VII (To be completed by Federal Agency) I i
i I
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) I 100 I I !
I
Total Site Asse sment (From Part Vl above or a local
sire assessment 160
TOTAL POINTS (Toral or above 2 lines) I 260 I i I I
I
Site Selected: I was A Local Sit= Assessment Used?
I Date Of Selec;ton Yes '__7 No ?
?-
ba(o?u
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
July 29, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, Manager
Planning and Environmental{ Branch
FROM: Carol A. Tingley, Chief 01/ \
Planning and Natural Resources Section
T
I 7"as
ED E-=- Flo
SUBJECT: Replacement of bridge #34 over the Lumber River at SR 1404 and SR 1104.
NCDOT TIP No. B-3044. State Project #8.2590301
The Division of Parks and Recreation has reviewed this project and has determined that it will
not significantly affect the Lumber River State Park's natural resources. Although we have no
objections to the project as it is planned, we would like to offer the following brief comments:
1. This project is midway between the US Highway 401 and the J.P. Stevens boat ramps. This
stretch of the Lumber River is very popular with recreational boaters and has been designated
as a Scenic River under the Natural and Scenic Rivers Act. The Division requests that particular
care and attention be given to the mitigation measures outlined in the 4(f) evaluation, especially
those dealing with erosion and sedimentation control, restoration of disturbed areas, and warning
signs.
. The Division requests that all restoration and landscaping use only native species.
: you or t:e c-;ortt Wily w rL r,e'.v t._ Yrce
CT/me
cc: James Sessoms, Superintendent, Lumber River State Park
LURIBRDG
Y
?G ? 1199 d
A N o f ?C
,.^Vd
01
A
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
United States Department of the Interior
IN REPLY REFER TO:
L7615(ATSO-S&P)
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Southeast Field Area
75 Spring Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
AUG 3
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Manager, Planning & Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:
1996
We have reviewed your letter of July 16 concerning the replacement
of Bridge Number 34 on the Lumber River and our comments are as
follows.
As requested by the State of North Carolina, the Lumber River is
currently under study by the U.S. Department of the Interior,
National Park Service, to determine its eligibility and suitability
for designation as a component of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System
under the terms of Section 2(a)(ii) of the National Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act. Any construction on this river must be compatible with
feasible management alternatives that will permanently protect this
river should it become a component of the system.
However, based on the information provided in the Draft Nationwide
Section 4(f) Evaluation and Approval, we do not believe that
replacement of the bridge would conflict with any proposal for
designation as a National Wild and Scenic River. We recommend that
you consult with the North Carolina Department of Parks and
Recreation regarding mitigation, such as the need for river access.
At this time our Section 4(f) comments are provided on a technical
assistance basis. In order to meet the concurrence requirements of
Section 4(f), the Section 4(f) statement must be officially
submitted to the Secretary of the Interior's Office of
Environmental Policy and Compliance.
We hope these comments are helpful to you in preparing the
environmental documentation for this project.
Sincerely,

W. Thomas Brown
Acting Superintendent
Atlantic Coast System Support Office
4 AUG 2 1 1996
f l
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITH MINOR INVOLVEMENT'S WITH
PUBLIC PARKS, RECREATION LANDS, AND WILDLIFE AND WATERFOWL REFUGES
` F.A. Project BRZ-1404(3)
State Project 8.2590301
T.I.P No. B-3044
Description: Replacement of the SR 1404/1104 Lumber River Bridge
Bridge No. 34) and improvements to adiacent roadway
approaches. See description, page 6.
1. Is the proposed project designed to improve the
operational characteristics, safety, and/or physical condition of
existing highway facilities on essentially the same location?
Yes No

2. Is the project on new location? ? ?
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?
(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 .........................1 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?
Yes
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)?
a. If the project involves lands described in Item 7 ?
above, does the appropriate Federal Agency object 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
1. Do-nothing.
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
(a) correct capacity deficiencies? ?
or (b) correct existing safety hazards? ?
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 measures been

evaluated? /
V/
(b) The items in 2(a) would result in:
(circle as appropriate)
(i) substantial adverse community impact
or (ii) substantial increased costs

or unique engineering, transportation, maintenance, or
safety problems
No /
V/
J
No

2
r ,
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
Yes No
3. Build an improved facility on new location without ? ?
using the uublic park recreational land, or wildlife and waterfowl
refuge. (This would be a localized "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 substantial social, environmental, or economic
impacts
or a substantial increase in project cost or engineering
difficulties
and (iv) such impacts, costs, or difficulties of truly unusual or
unique or extraordinary magnitude
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information prior to approval. Consult
Nationwide 4(f) evaluation.
3
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
Yes No
The project includes all possible planning to minimize ?
harm.
Measures to minimize harm include the following:
(circle those which are appropriate)
a. Replacement of land 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.
Restoration and landscaping of disturbed areas.
O 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.
0 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 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. Sedimentation and erosion control measures (Best Management Practices and Sediment Control
Guidelines for High Quality Waters) will be strictly enforced during the construction stage of this
project. North Carolina regulations entitled "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC
04B .0024) will be strictly adhered to throughout design and construction within 1.6 kilometers
(I mile) and draining to High Quality Waters. Grass berms along construction areas will help decrease
erosion and allow potentially toxic substances such as engine fluids and particulate rubber to be
absorbed into the soil before these substances reach waterways.
D. NCDOT shall install a sign just upstream and downstream of the bridge noting bridge construction is
underway.
4
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach correspondence).
a. Officials having jurisdiction over the .1
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
SUN%4ARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criteria included in the programatic 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:
Date Manager, "Planning & Environmental Branch
NCDOT
i/z "77
xg'nc ,-
Date ?? Divisi n Administrator, FHWA
S
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This proposed construction is part of the B-3044 project which includes replacement of
the SR 1404 and SR 1104 Lumber River bridge (Bridge No. 34) and improvements to 60
meters (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 1404 and SR 1104 Lumber River bridge
(Bridge No. 34) 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 consists 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 85 meters (278 feet) long and have a 7.8-meter (25.6-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.

1 12 2 I I
• R \ Edinburgh h .. _
`? `
? a 1 101
-
1.9
•2 LG
1400

120 1120
1403 _ AG
^
401 1) 1 1 0 1 J

1410 .4

c ?•:*., 1

Purcell
1119

1 40
A41 q 5
1 :I 6 8
• ?: a .
FAS' .5
bpi 405 11 04 113
l 1)8
j+
®
AGRAM 110 y ---..
p
6 14
POP. 617 1 ii s
140
BRIDGE NO
34
`? 1 1 0
. 9
16 Q a

P a 419

l , 1101 t, 1-117.
?
Q 1102 1104
h 3 `? 8 rti 111
8

5c 14T7 1407 Lilly
Q - °
o>
d Q .r, 1 i .2
1 100'
00
1 10,1
N
1418
1
416
'6 " 1106
1421 J
6 1
1 1407 • 1100 `- ?•?
1 105 1 107
1425
o` 1106 4
1403 >t _
P
1426
/1427
AN' b
7Z

40
427
1427 3 1433
W ?
1407 ry
1411
T
..nan
i
?gnsc
SCOT
c_ Old Hundred./,
rGIbsod'
`.lAasons l a
`l`ohns/
t •y Hasty)
LEGEND
?"'? Studied Detour Route
.moWh Wood. SNP
FORT BRAGG MILITARY RESERV.
shley Heights
n \1H-0 K E _
Montrose ---_ - a.
EgOFN 4 ? '1)'_.
erlsnd
RaetorN . Rockhsf
kfL M ?L
+
OL,
0;_j 1 `5 5 r' Nabla
` Ou arrach 20 s
-` a Antlo°h Bum'
FIGURE 1
® North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
SCOTLAND - HOKE COUNTIES
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 34 ON
SR 1404/1104 OVER LUMBER RIVER
F.A. Project BRZ-1404(3)
State Project 8.2590301
T.I.P. No. B-3044
0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3 *2
I
0 miles 1.0 mil" 2.0
i
i
i
;01

i

o ? cn

u
I

zw \
\
\ 0z
°
J

i

?? ?
RIVER ? ?
/
R /

z?
a?
-i z
00
U U
V)
0 N
aw
w?
w?
0?
LL.
0
Y
1L z
0a
F-- co
01
J
LL I
,Q
V),
® North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
SCOTLAND AND HOKE COUNTIES
BRIDGE NO. 34 ON SR 1404 & SR 1104
OVER LUMBER RIVER
B-3044
FIGURE 2A

u
a w
?
O Cl)

E V) z w
C4 w
c
0 m
E ".= ..
COO
c E z C') ? co C7
vz°a r?o w

E
s
E

4
x ?r>

r.
?..°_w ww
C4
w >C)

x NcOM

X
M. m
C14 v v ° coa

L. co OAV
xx
° ., q 6

oz
L)
0 r, n a
c oa, a
.+ C C z w
QUA o n. .

E-;
i t 0 L.
zE-0. a Q In
Oa°a
Q?
U w k f/1
Sao
V)
® x

E
M

Z Z
LLI
O O Z
z
U V Q
N N 3
3:0
_ ?

v7

U Z LLI
U V)
0 O
N
CL 0- W
v
CL
Q CL
Q a_ D
0
,J J w
V V =
OL CL
3

M
n $ E s
N a M = O

Q
•
C'4 $ E
v n
1 U W
C.
o >
a N,
zW
W?a4 wrz
a?i cho ?

w
o E M
z ?r o
.a
d
c7

b ^ p A 0 d; ?
0 Z
c v
U Cz.
O NO
v di >
R
p W
W W7
N M
W x Q p CM ra
?Uy
,,, C df

b
0- .a. O
xx
z
O V

a ?+ 00 _
? (,?
O
? on a
c c
-+ q zw
Q U Ex w
zE
•a a 0i
a
i - 0a
.?
?a?r r?rn
0
1
®
a

N W
.
Z

W

D

V

N

O

0
_
H
V
W
N
J
V
CL O

V

= all
J
E 0
lh N w
Z J
U
g D u.

z ?
O J
Q
V 0 o 0
N .a
LL

Y w
r
LU
V 0, C14
Q
Q ? N
oe Z
w O
10
o = Z
N
U-

A
I
1W
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
July 29, 1996
MEMORAiINDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, Manager
Planning and EnvironmentaBranch
FROM: Carol A. Tingley, Chief C/ \
Planning and Natural Resources Section
SUBJECT: Replacement of bridge #34 over the Lumber River at SR 1404 and SR 1104.
NCDOT TIP No. B-3044. State Project #8.2590301
The Division of Parks and Recreation has reviewed this project and has determined that it will
not significantly affect the Lumber River State Park's natural resources. Although we have no
objections to the project as it is planned, we would like to offer the following brief comments:
1. This project is midway between the US Highway 401 and the J.P. Stevens boat ramps. This
stretch of the Lumber River is very popular with recreational boaters and has been designated
as a Scenic River under the Natural and Scenic Rivers Act. The Division requests that particular
care and attention be given to the mitigation measures outlined in the 4(f) evaluation, especially
those dealing with erosion and sedimentation control, restoration of disturbed areas, and warning
signs.
The Division requests that all restoration and landscaping use only native species.
i
or
Ti; anlc you for t- r,pZ,oAt? nity to re1re .v t : prcj: c .
Gay `? ??
CT/me
cc: James Sessoms, Superintendent, Lumber River State Park 6
? 1 X99
LURIBRDG AEG J OF m
rat
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
United States Department of the Interior

IN REPLY REFER To
L7615(ATSO-S&P)
999;,
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Southeast Field Area
75 Spring Street, S.W.
Atlanta. Georgia 30303
BUG
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
r
Manager, Planning & Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:
•ar
We have reviewed your letter of July 16 concerning the replacement
of Bridge Number 34 on the Lumber River and our comments are as
follows.
As requested by the State of North Carolina, the Lumber River is
currently under study by the U.S. Department of the Interior,
National Park Service, to determine its eligibility and suitability
for designation as a component of the Wild and Scenic Rivers system
under the terms of Section 2 (a) (ii) of the National Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act. Any construction on this river must be compatible with
feasible management alternatives that will permanently protect this
river should it become a component of the system.
However, based on the information provided in the Draft Nationwide
Section 4(f) Evaluation and Approval, we do not believe that
replacement of the bridge would conflict with any proposal for
designation as a National Wild and Scenic River. We recommend that
you consult with the North Carolina Department of Parks and
Recreation regarding mitigation, such as the need for river access.
At this time our section 4(f) comments are provided on a technical
assistance basis. In order to meet the concurrence requirements of
Section 4(f), the Section 4(f) statement must be officially
submitted to the Secretary of the Interior's Office of
Environmental Policy and Compliance.
We hope these comments are helpful to you in preparing the
environmental documentation for this project.
W. Thomas Brown
Acting Superintendent
Atlantic Coast System Support Office
Sincerely,
GE??` O
AUG 2 z 1996
i