19980716 Ver 1_Complete File_19980727

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
I 1kT?W'J
•
T
A&4 PIML
mam-M - __
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
October 19, 1998
Robeson/Scotland Counties
DWQ Project # 980716
T.I.P. No. B-3392
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification, Additional Conditions, WRP
Mr. Bill Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC, 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, to place fill in 2.0 acres of
wetlands for the purpose of replacing and relocating Bridge No. 16 on NC 71 over the Lumber
River in Robeson and Scotland Counties, as you described in your application dated July 13, and
followup correspondence dated August 24 (e-mail) and October 5, 1998. After reviewing your
application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification
Number 3197. This certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit 23 when the Corps of
Engineers issues a 404 Permit. 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,
Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. This approval will expire when the
accompanying 404 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
and as conditioned in this Certification. If you change your project, you must notify us and you
may be required to send us a new application for a new Certification. If any portion of the right-of-
way is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter and is
thereby responsible for complying with all conditions.
Compensatory mitigation is required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h). The
proposed work will require 2.0 acres of fill in riverine wetlands. DOT proposes to restore 1.39
acres of fill in the footprint of the existing bridge following completion of the new bridge, and to
mitigate 0.61 acres through payment to the Wetland Restoration Program. Please note that in
accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)(7) and (h)(6), the required mitigation area for your
proposed work is to total 4.0 acres (not the 2.0 acres proposed), 2.0 acres of which must include
restoration or creation. Therefore, the 4.0 acres required, minus the 1.39 acres of mitigation area
available on site, leaves a debit of 2.61 acres. According to 15A 2R.0503(b) acreage
requirements to be mitigated through the Wetland Restoration Program must be rounded to one-
quarter increments. Thus, the payment to WRP should be for 2.75 acres of riverine wetlands.
The onsite mitigation area, as described in the CE document shall be implemented with the
following additional conditions:
Division of Water Quality - Non-Discharge Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer - 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper

1. The restoration area in the footprint of the old bridge shall be monitored for a period of
five years, with the results reported to DWQ.
2. The onsite mitigation area shall be protected from vehicular and foot traffic to the
maximum extent practical while the plantings mature.
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2R .0500, the onsite restoration combined with the WRP
contribution will satisfy our compensatory mitigation requirements under 15A NCAC 2H
.0506(h). According to 15A NCAC 2H .0506(h), 2.75 acres of riverine wetland restoration by
WRP will be required. You are required to forward payment (made payable to: DENR - Wetland
Restoration Program) to the Wetland Restoration Program prior to the construction of this project.
Mr. Ron Ferrell should be contacted at 919-733-5083 ext. 358 if you have any questions
concerning the Wetland Restoration Program. For accounting purposes, this Certification
authorizes the fill of 2.0 acres of riparian wetlands in the Cape Fear River and subbasin,
requiring 2.75 acres of riparian wetland restoration by the WRP and 1.39 acres of onsite
mitigation by DOT.
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 Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Sincer,
L
Pr VnHoward, Jr. P.E.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
Fayetteville DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
Ron Ferrell, Wetland Restoration Program
980716.1tr

NORTH CAROLINA - DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
SUMMARY OF PERMITTED IMPACTS AND MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0500, NCDOT, DWQ Project #980716, is authorized to
impact 2.0 acres of wetlands of the State of North Carolina as indicated below for the purpose of
replacing Bridge No. 16 over the Lumber River on new location (T.I.P. No. B-3392). All
activities associated with these authorized impacts must be conducted in accordance with the
conditions listed in the attached certification transmittal letter. THIS CERTIFICATION IS
NOT VALID WITHOUT THE ATTACHMENTS.
LOCATION: Replace Bridge No. 16 on NC 71 over the Lumber River on new location
COUNTY: Robeson and Scotland
BASIN/SUBBASIN: Cape Fear
As required by 15A NCAC 211.0506, and the conditions of this certification, you are required to
compensate for the above impacts through the restoration, creation, enhancement or preservation
of wetlands and surface waters as outlined below prior to conducting any activities that impact or
degrade waters of the state.
Note: Acreage requirements proposed to be mitigated through the Wetland Restoration Program
must be rounded to one-quarter increments according to 15A 2R.0503(b).
2.0 acres of wetland riverine fill, mitigation to be provided by:
1.39 acres of onsite riverine restoration
2.75 acres of riverine mitigation by the WRP
One of the options you have available to satisfy the compensatory mitigation requirements is
through payment of a fee to the Wetland Restoration Fund per 15A NCAC 2R.0503. If you
choose this option, please sign this form and mail it to the Wetlands Restoration Fund at the
address listed below. An invoice for the appropriate amount of payment will be sent to you upon
receipt of this form. PLEASE NOTE, THE ABOVE IMPACTS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED
UNTIL YOU RECEIVE NOTIFICATION THAT YOUR PAYMENT HAS BEEN
PROCESSED BY THE WETLANDS RESTORATION PROGRAM.
Signature Date
WETLANDS RESTORATION PROGRAM
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
P.O. BOX 29535
RALEIGH, NC, 27626-0535
[phone] ext. 358
Alands Tracking N ...... t
CIFIIIPP,%i?
Facility Name NC DOT Bridge # 16 I County Robeson
Project Number 98 0716 County2
0Inactive Region Fayettf
Project Type purpose of bridge replacement DCM Office'
Location I COE Office Wilmin
Latitude Longitude
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Bill Gilmore
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
NCDOT
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-5201
1 ? •
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Date 11/18/98
NCDWQ# 980716
TIP# B-3392
SUBJECT: WRP-FAILURE OF PAYMENT NOTIFICATION
Bridge #16
NC 71, Lumber River
Robeson and Scotland Counties
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
On October 19, 1998 you were issued a 401 Water Quality Certification authorizing you
to impact wetlands and or waters of the State. As part of this Certification you were required to
make a payment to the N.C. Wetland Restoration Program for impacts to 2.75 acres of riverine
wetlands. As of this date, no payment for these activities has been received.
You are hereby notified that the wetland and or water impacts approved by your 401
Certification must not be initiated PRIOR to payment into the WRP. Failure to make payment
for wetland or stream impacts as required by your 401 Water Quality Certification may result in
an enforcement action being initiated against you. Additionally, a Civil Penalty assessment not to
exceed $10,000 per day may also be levied against you.
Please submit your payment and return the enclosed form to the WRP (address listed on
the form) within 21 days upon your receipt. If this matter is not resolved by this time, NCDWQ
will proceed to revoke your Certification and initiate an enforcement action you for this matter.
If you should have any questions regarding this matter please feel free to call me at (919)
733-1786 or Ron Ferrell at (919-733-5083 EXT. 358).
n Dorney
qater kl??f
Quality Cert ultion Program
Cc: Ron Ferrell, WRP
Ken Averitte, Fayetteville Regional Office
Wetlands/401 Unit 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post consumer paper
_*
,. srA711w?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
SECRETARY
October 5, 1998
NCDWQ
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
ATTENTION: Mr. John Dorney
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Robeson and Scotland Counties, Replacement of Bridge No. 16 over the
Lumber River, TIP No. B-3392, State Project No. 8.1462401, Federal Aid
Project No. BRSTP-71 (1).
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) applied for a Nationwide
Permit No. 23 and a Section 401 Water Quality Certification on July 13, 1998. Bridge
No. 16 will be replaced with a new bridge approximately 40 feet west of the existing
roadway alignment. The existing structure will be used for maintenance of traffic during
construction. The new bridge will be approximately 30.0 feet wide and 190 feet long.
The roadway grade of the new bridge will be approximately the same as the existing
bridge. A 480.0 foot right-turn lane into the Campbell Soup facility will also be
provided.
Construction of the proposed project will have approximately 2.0 acres of impact to
jurisdictional wetlands. As detailed in the July 13, 1998 application, 1.39 acres of
jurisdictional wetlands will be restored on-site through the removal of the existing bridge
and approaches. Therefore, 0.61 acres of impact will need to be mitigated off-site. The
NCDOT proposes to utilize the Wetland Restoration Program (WRP) at the specified 2:1
ratio for linear projects affecting less than three acres. The NCDOT proposes to pay the
sum of $29,280 for 1.22 acres of riparian wetland mitigation.
.O.

EPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
qh? .-
The NCDOT requests that a Section 401 Water Quality Certification be issued for this
project. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr.
Lindsey Riddick at [phone] ext. 315.
Sincerely,
S
William D. Gilmore, P. Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
WDG/plr
Attachments
cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE, Wilmington
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. W. S. Varnedoe, P. E., Division 06 Engineer
Mr. Randy Wise, P. E., Roadside Environmental
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
August 24, 1998
Mr. Bill Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27611
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Re: Replacement of Bridge No. 16 over the Lumber River
Robeson and Scotland Counties
DWQ # 980716; T.I.P. No. B-3392; State Project No. 8.1462401
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed your request of July 13, 1998 for issuance of a
General 401 Water Quality Certification 3197 (Nationwide Permit 23 - Categorical Exclusions)
for the replacement of Bridge No. 16 on new location over the Lumber River. The proposed
work will require 2.0 acres of fill in wetlands. DOT proposes to restore 1.39 acres of fill in the
footprint of the existing bridge following completion of the new bridge. Details of this
mitigation plan were not included with your application, and it is unclear whether DOT intends
to monitor this mitigation site. Furthermore, in accordance with 15A NCAC 2110506(h)(7) and
(h)(6), the required mitigation area for your proposed work is 4.0 acres, 2.0 acres of which must
include restoration or creation. Therefore, your application is incomplete pending submittal of a
mitigation plan. Until a mitigation plan is approved, you are advised that your application will
remain on hold. The mitigation plan is needed by DWQ in order for us to issue a 401 Water
Quality Certification. DOT is reminded that in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)(3), the
Wetland Restoration Program is available to use for wetland mitigation.
Also, the Lumber River is classified as a High Quality Water at your project location. In
correspondence dated April 15, 1996, DWQ requested that the bridge deck should be designed to
exclude weep holes. On August 24, 1998, Mr. Lindsey Riddick informed Ms. Cyndi Bell of my
staff that the bridge has standard deck design due to drainage constraints. Given the HQW
designation of the Lumber River, please investigate other ways to divert stormwater onto
adjacent vegetated areas, rather than directly into the river.
I can be reached at 733-1786 if you have any questions. Until this information is received, I
will request (by copy of this letter) that the Corps of Engineers place this project on hold. Also,
the project will remain on hold for our processing due to incomplete information (15A NCAC
2H .0507(a)(4)).
Division of Water Quality - Non-Discharge Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer - 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
cc: Ken Averitte, DWQ Regional Office
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office Corps of Engineers
John Dorney
Central Files
980716.hld
Sincerely,
Cyndi_B
From: Lindsey T. Riddick [[e-mail]. state. nc.us]
Sent: Monday, August 24, 1998 5:02 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: b-3392
Hydraulics investigated the possibility of constructing the project without deck drainsand without
drains directly over the water. Their calculations showed that the "spread" was excessive.
Meaning that in periods of heavy rainfall the water puddled and encraoched into the travel lanes.
Also, the flatness of the terrain required drains throughout the length of the structure. Therefore,
the bridge has standard deck drain design. Please let me know if I can provide any more
information. Thanks.
AUG.14.1998 4:01PM ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT N0.609 P.2i2
' .. +.. -
project N e r
County
Name of evaluator
Wetland Location
o pond or lake
-v on perenaw strew
on iatwm ttarn stn=
_ within intendream divide
_ other
Boll series
predominantly organic - hunn, muck,
or peat
predominantly mineral - non dy
-predominantly sandy
HydrauIic factors
steep topography
ditched or ch wnelind
,/,.,_, total wetland width 2100 feel
wetland %K (select One)*
$ottomland hardwood
Headwater forest
_ Swamp tbresst
_ Wet fiat
Pocodn
Bog tbrest
*the ratios system cannot be appkc
B water storage
A BmWShoreline staNU ntio
T Pollutant removd
I WndM habits
N Aquatic life value
G Recreation/Educatiot
Ale Nearest Rona
acres wedu d Width - A._ feet
r...- Y, _J.- 9w
Adjacent land use
(within 1n mile upstrMA apslope, or radius)
ed/nwral va8mta#ion'
?=07grimultaM urbsn/subwban %
v'impetvious stuface/V? %
Dominant vegetation
(3) ? - -
Flooding and wetness
semipermancutly to pornuantly
flooded or inundated
- wmnally flooded or inundated
intermittauly flooded or temporary
surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Pine savanna
-Freshwater marsh
HogTM
_ Ephemeral wetland
Carolina Day
Other
to salt or aravxUsn M4V*U95 vT bu V4uu VU6iLJF
-----------
V14#
x 4.00 =
x 4.00
* x 5.00 •.
x 2.00
X 4.00
?- x 1.00
*Add 1 point if in sensitive watersh d and >1N nonpoint disturbance within 112 mile upstre ua,
u?11QLradius
AUG.14.199e 4:01PM ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT
I
FAX MEMORANDU
To: Eric Galaml
Wetlaiads G pup
fax # [phone]
From; Ken Awritt+l
phone [phone]
Subject:
"'74 -71
i
?4elle
NO. 609 P.1/2
The following page is the rating sheet for the subject 401
application. The staf??part is on rMP.
1
r+;0 1 '

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 1
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
[i?_l 1111.?
WETIANDS ta4;1? !
E. NoRRIs ToLSON
SECRETARY
980716
July 13, 1998
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Mr. Dave Timpy
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Robeson and Scotland Counties, Replacement of Bridge No. 16 over the
Lumber River, TIP No. B-3392, State Project No. 8.1462401, Federal Aid
Project No. BRSTP-71 (1).
Attached for your information is a copy of the Categorical Exclusion for the subject
project. Bridge No. 16 will be replaced with a new bridge approximately 40 feet west of
the existing roadway alignment. The existing structure will be used for maintenance of
traffic during construction. The new bridge will be approximately 30.0 feet wide and
190 feet long. The roadway grade of the new bridge will be approximately the same as
the existing bridge. A 480.0 foot right-turn lane into the Campbell's Soup Facility will
also be provided.
Construction of the proposed project will have approximately 2.0 acres of impact to
jurisdictional wetlands. No federally protected species, High Quality Waters,
Outstanding Resource Waters, WS-1, or WS-II waters will be impacted. After
construction is complete, the existing bridge, approaches, and areas of temporary land
clearing will be removed and restored to pre-construction contour. These areas will be
revegetated with native tree species at 320 stems per acre. The removal of the existing
roadbed, restoration to original contours and revegetation of cleared and restored areas
will result in the reclamation of 1.39 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. Therefore, the
impact of this project, after reclamation activities, will be 0.61 acres.
0
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical
Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate
requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued December 13, 1996, by the
Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these
regulations will be followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Water Quality Certification No. 3107 will apply to this
project, and are providing one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their
review.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Lindsey
Riddick at [phone] ext. 315.
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, /E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
WDG/Ir
Attachments
cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, DWQ
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. W. S. Varnedoe, P. E., Division 06 Engineer
Mr. Randy Wise, P. E., Roadside Environmental
r
401
i
i
1
>? J l
t ' SCOTLAND
S COUNTY /
i
501
oll
VIGINITY MAP SNOWIN& LOGATION
OF SLATE PKOJEGT 6.1462401
-.-
--._ HOKE- COUNTY
......
TEND PROJECT
N.G. OEPT. OF TKANSPOKTAT(ON
PIV151ON OF NI&HWAY5
SGOTI,ANO K00660N GOUNTIES
PKOJEGT 6.1462401 -53392-
NG 71
SNEET I OF

NGw
?i

z
e
W 114 \'°J
r?`'
g
2
° ° F.
eh d. V ~o\ ob
J? `,

Er F, ?
\ I
a. a z ¢ \

°
z
?

I•I
? ?^? +nrarvn?i
(
I

I 1
I M
?
I

I ?
1
amoftz I I W
z

? -_, J,Z Ly C7
W
m

otp
¢ i
?? S \IN 1
S ? 1
° I
¢
Y
Z
O ?
? N

O '
dS U

dS O d- ?

O ? v-
o
o ?

? U oc
? d
z
°
z
¢
.h
z
0
S
d
d
Z
U
O
O
d-
U
O
O
O
N
S
I

! :I / '-
/ f
f
i

z

Z
(?L Q ? ?
O3 O
? S

Z O - L?
QS O
OL

oz ° - z
o °L
co
?- °

I ° O O ?
U flL

'! z
ID
-o
-z
o?
O ?
S 3
? Z
? .7
? Z
H -
O p?
Z Q
O ?
U
ID
CN
Z
6
3
L
H
O
z
cs

U U
a
? O
0 0
z z
a
3 3
Z Z
? Z
4 ?
H
O U
a
0
00-CZ VJLS - IN I IH9.1VN
d'
LC)
O(g
Z
LLJ z .
? a
Cz o a-
U V)
- Z W
i^

CL'
CL K
W
Q Z U /
/ l.v
x a. Cl)
=UV)a
. EE zLj- ! !
'm0
?.
<F-?
_j LL- 0
u 00
I
L` LZ

Q 1

?
N
)
=
0_ W ; 00 ! Of 1

CCJV)V)J / !
CL LL- LL.J W W / 0
!
! U Z

! ! W
/

(`
i
` r

W
QZ
v
I?
k
x

I J??
LI
l zt
00100
v
im
n
0
0
MATGNI, I NE - 5TA 23+00
z

Q
Z
?L ¢ ? m
o? o
N

QS O ? ?

O

Oz Z
o co

Q
?>
°-
O O ?
v (SZ
? d
Z
W\
D
Z
Z,
v
d
Z
d
3
d
U
o ?
N
0
Z
? a
a
. ? 3
p ? Z
O m
S i
~ Z ?
.D
o?
Z¢
o?
u p

xr,
O
w
> - ?<'; f1Z V N O
' to if O
U_ d
U' OZ - Z
cr- MA
3 CID
O ?l ppp A ?
W
In , O ~ O ? 1 ??I? / • / ? I ^ li - Z ?
j i ;il?i Q I ' w - I?? ?.. p Z
U f-F- \ iii `^•`,{ ' - - L4 Q NA
S Z
X Q
w J w Z
\A Z
co
Z o
z
Q = \ - Q
p Lil
77
(Nd
\A \A
CL LLJ
? J ? 1 - N f? O
0- U U
F
Co w Co UOOQ
LL L/) O LL
4a C?
OV,a-- O? > ??rr 1 ?+U??? °_ Z
Z Z
cr-
>U =j ;11 ¢1.11 '?
3 3
<?, V)L1V) X 3
J3:: otSwww ?J s' \ Z Z Z
d U U
Z
?? ? ,
co LLJ Cc
LL V) O LL \ `? 1 1 v ¢
¢
OV) Z
cr 0Y->- \ 0 o o v
Q w F- UV) 1- ~ ~ ¢
U ?? o
1- LL I - F- I- '-\l
Q V)V)V1 .. \..'....
J3: dSwwLil
00-IC dl5 - ?N I'INOl`dW
~ ? 'I ?I I? ?r•L
-
Li
Z
Q -r ao -
?UNLQi
f-
N

O O
-iJ Ii
}
ui 00

V) V)
LLJ

'
\?
- J d

LLJ

z
o ?
N

DL ¢ i-D m
O 3 O
°s v

Dd
O ? ? v
Oz - z C]
o ?
`o
o
?-
\A
C,
0 0 0

ID
0
V
va
V
0
Z
Q
W
3

V
\'.,

U
o ?
;j
IS) 2
Z
- ? 3
O t- Z
O ? -
A.
W Z ii1
4- - ql
Z ¢ O
J 0
a Q
co
In
0 0
Z Z
a
3 3
Z Z
Z
Q
a ?
?- J
o
Q
0
z
0
Q ?
\^h ?L Q
O 3
d S
Z-
Q S
MATGNI. I NE - 6f A 31 .00

?
Z ?
Z ?
O
U

? N (\
?

? z

0
z
?
Q

?- o s

U O.

/I
7
1
7
C
0
LO
Q
U
U1
N
- o
-z
-a
o F-
O m
S 3
H
? Z
? Z
O p[
Z ¢
D ?
U
of
a
3
V
a
z
m
O
Z
I&
O
SUMMARY

DITCH TOTAL
FILL EXCAVATION * CLEARING FILL
IN IN IN IN
SITE STATION STRUCTURE WETLANDS WETLANDS WETLANDS WETLANDS
NO. (ACRE) (ACRE) (ACRE) (CY)

A 20+00 - 25+50 - 0.76 - 0.10 7,200
B 15+50 - 18+75 0.47 0.12 0.04 4,200
C 27+25 - 33+50 0.38 0.13 3,300
TOTALS: 1.61 0.12 0.27 14,700
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
SCOTLAND ROBESON COUNTIES
PROJECT 8.1462401 (133392)
NC 71
* METHOD III CLEARING
,? ? DECEMBER 1997
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dorney
Non-Discharge Branch
Regional Contact: Ken Averitte
WO Supervisor: Grads. nobson
Date:
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Facility Name NC DOT Bridge # 16 County Robeson
Project Number 98 0716
Recvd From DOT
Received Date 7/27/98
Recvd By Region 8-10-98
Project Type bridge replacement
County2
Region Fayetteville
Certificates Stream
Permit Wetland Wetland Wetland Stream Class Acres Feet
Type Type Impact Score Index Prim. Supp. Basin Req. Req.
23 B HH FT-0 N 95 14-(11) I -BFHQW 030751 2.00 F
I-F---- O Y _0N III-F-f_I- F_
Mitigation Wetland
MitigationType Type Acres Feet
Is Mitigation required? 0 Y 0 N
Did you request more info? 0 Y 0 N
Is Wetland Rating Sheet Attached? 0 Y 0 N
Have Project Changes/Conditions Been Discussed With Applicant? 0 Y pQ N
Comments:
Recommendation: 0 Issue 0 Issue/Coed 0 Deny
I-Iowever,.giyen the volume of traffic (' li gheayy trruck_s), the extended time necessacy for
contra ietiom and the question of s iitahle detour routes during the construction A? riod, this eject
may warrant approval on the conditions that 1) once ahandoned, the existing road bed is to he
excavated to or below the elevation of the existing flood plain, 2) a suitable planting schedule IS
supplied and accepted by this Division, 3) the planting area is secured to prohibit vehicular and foot
traffic to the maximum extent possible for Several years while I?gs mature 4) DOT provide
evidence that there are no detour routes available with suitable weight carryipg r? a ity. Should
acceptahl _ detours he available, the certification should he denied and the new bridge built on
cc: Regional Office Page Number 1
Central Office
Facility Name NC DOT Bridge # 16 County Robe$on

Project Number 98 0716 Regional Contact: Ken Averitte
Date: 8/14/98
Comments (continued from page 1):
Should acceptable detours be available, this certification should be denied and the new bridge built on
existing location )given the HOW classification of the stream, the proposed bridge shollid not
?ncl ode drainage weep holes over the water body, raardless of the alignment. _
cc: Regional Office Page Number 2
Central Office
NC 71
Robeson and Scotland Counties
Bridge No. 16 over Lumber River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-71(1)
State Project No. 8.1462401
T.I.P. No. B-3392
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AND
PROGRAMMATIC 4(F) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
y H
Planning and Environmental Branch
Ili
DA
echo L. Graf, P.E.
f-'V4
ivision Administrator, FHWA
l -Z help (
DATE
NC 71
Robeson and Scotland Counties
Bridge No. 16 over Lumber River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-71(1)
State Project No. 8.1462401
T.I.P. No. B-3392
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AND
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
December, 1996
Documentation Prepared By Ko & Associates, P.C.

C6'd
Lisa Hilliard, P.E.
Project Manager - Ko & Associates
CA11
EEL
o
°° 15310
? e
°
0
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
L. Gail Grimes, P.E., Unit Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
Philip S. Harris, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
NC 71
Robeson and Scotland Counties
Bridge No. 16 over Lumber River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-71(1)
State Project No. 8.1462401
T.I.P. No. B-3392
Bridge No. 16 is included in the NCDOT 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program. The
location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is
classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures, including NCDOT's Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters, will be implemented, as applicable, to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts.
2. "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" in accordance with the Sedimentation Control
Guidelines (Title 15A 4B. 0024) will be implemented in High Quality Waters zones.
The location and installation of any required deck drains will be determined during final
design stages.
4. The existing bridge and approaches will be removed to pre-construction contour and
revegetated with native tree species at 320 stems per acre.
II. Si TMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 16 will be replaced immediately west of its existing location with a two-lane bridge.
Traffic will be maintained on the existing structure during construction. A right-turn lane that extends
from the north end of the bridge into the Campbell Soup facility will be provided.
The estimated cost for the proposed improvement is $1,555,500. The estimated cost of the project,
as shown in the NCDOT 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program, is $820,000 including
$70,000 for right-of-way and $750,000 for construction.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
NC 71 is classified as a rural major collector in the Statewide Functional Classification System. The
proposed project is located on NC 71 at the Robeson/Scotland County line, approximately 4
kilometers (2.5 mi) north of the town of Maxton. Land use around the study corridor is a mix of
agricultural and urban, with large tracts of natural vegetation occurring adjacent to the Lumber River.
Near the bridge, NC 71 has a 6.7 meter (22 ft) pavement width with 1.8 meter (6 ft) shoulders. An
80 meter (262 ft) long right-turn lane into the Campbell Soup facility is located north of the existing
bridge. The roadway approaches slope up toward the bridge. The horizontal alignment is tangent on
the bridge with a 430 meter radius (4 degree) curve approximately 210 meters (690 ft) from the
bridge to the south. The north approach is tangent. The roadway is situated approximately 4.9 meters
(16 ft) above the creek bed.
The traffic volumes were 7600 vehicles per day (vpd) for 1995 and projected to be 17,000 vpd for
the design year 2025. The volumes include 8% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 2% dual-tired
vehicles (DT). The posted speed limit is 88 kilometers per hour (55 mph) and signed down to 72.4
kilometers per hour (45 mph) north of the bridge.
The existing bridge was built in 1957 (Figure 3). The superstructure consists of ten timber joist
spans. Bridge deck construction is a cast in place concrete floor deck with an asphalt wearing
surface. The substructure consists of creosote timber pile end bents and interior bents with reinforced
concrete caps.
The overall length of the bridge is 52.7 meters (173 ft). Clear roadway width is 8.5 meters (28 ft).
The posted weight limit is 26,308.8 kilograms (29 tons) for single vehicles and legal gross weight
limit for tractor-trailer trucks.
Bridge No. 16 has a sufficiency rating of 23.0, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
Nine accidents were reported in the vicinity of the bridge during the period from April 1, 1992 to
March 31, 1995. The total accident rate for this period was 289.39 accidents per 100 million vehicle
kilometers (MVK). The total accident rate for two-lane, undivided rural North Carolina routes for
the period from 1992 through 1994 was 124.74 accidents per 100 MVK. The majority of the
accidents involved rear-end collisions and vehicles running off the road. There was no single
concentration of accidents; however, three of the nine accidents occurred near the intersection of SR
1435 and SR 1461.
Telephone lines cross the stream west of the bridge, electric lines cross the stream east of the bridge.
Fiber optic lines are located southeast of the bridge and assumed to be within the existing right-of-
way. A 6-inch ductile iron force main sewer pipe is attached to the west side of the bridge and a
gaging station is attached to the east face of the bridge. Impacts to utilities are expected to be medium
as a result of the proposed project construction.
There are a total of six school bus crossings of this bridge daily. The Robeson County School
Transportation Director indicated that an off-site detour would cause problems in rerouting of school
bus traffic.
2
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives were studied for replacing Bridge No. 16. A two-lane bridge and a three-lane
bridge were considered at each of the alternate locations. The two-lane option would provide a 137.2
meter (450 ft) right-turn lane into the Campbell Soup facility. The three-lane option would provide
a 146.3 meter (480 ft) right-turn lane into the Campbell Soup facility. This right-turn lane would
extend from the Campbell Soup facility across the new bridge. Each alternate consists of replacing
the existing bridge with a new structure having a length of 58 meters (190 ft) and a width of either
9.2 meters (30 ft) for the two-lane structure or 12.4 meters (40 ft) for the three-lane structure. The
approach roadway will consist of a 7.2 meter (24 ft) travelway for the two-lane option or a 10.8
meter (36 ft) travelway for the three-lane option with 2.4 meter (8 ft) shoulders, 1.2 meter (4 ft)
paved. The shoulder width will be increased to 3.4 meters (11 ft) where guardrail is warranted.
Temporary, on-site detours were considered west (Temporary Detour 1) and east (Temporary Detour
2) of the existing bridge. An off-site detour was not considered for this site.
The alternate alignments studied are shown on Figure 2 and are as follow:
Alternate A - 2-lane (Recommended): involves replacing the bridge approximately 12 meters (40 ft)
west of the existing alignment. The existing structure would be used for maintenance of traffic during
construction. The roadway grade of the new bridge would be approximately the same elevation as
the existing bridge grade. The design speed for this alternate is 100 kilometers per hour (60 mph).
The total length of this alternate, including the approaches, is 820 meters (2690 ft).
Alternate B - 2-lane with on-site detour: involves replacing the bridge at its existing location. Traffic
would be maintained with a temporary, on-site detour. The roadway grade of the new bridge would
be approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge grade. The design speed for this alternate
is 100 kilometers per hour (60 mph). A right-turn lane extending from the north end of the bridge into
the Campbell Soup facility would be provided. The total length of this alternate, including the
approaches, is 366 meters (1200 ft).
Alternate A - Mane: involves replacing the bridge approximately 12 meters (40 ft) west of the
existing alignment. The new bridge would require staged construction for the three-lane option. The
existing structure would be used for maintenance of traffic during construction. The roadway grade
of the new bridge would be approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge grade. The design
speed for this alternate is 100 kilometers per hour (60 mph).The total length of this alternate,
including the approaches, is 820 meters (2690 ft).
Alternate B - 34ane with on-site detour: involves replacing the bridge at its existing location. Traffic
would be maintained with a temporary, on-site detour. The roadway grade of the new bridge would
be approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge grade. The design speed for this alternate
is 100 kilometers per hour (60 mph). A right-tum lane extending from the north end of the bridge into
the Campbell Soup facility would be provided. The total length of this alternate, including the
approaches, is 366 meters (1200 ft).
The No-Build or "do-nothing" alternative was also considered but would eventually necessitate
closure of the bridge. This is not desirable due to the traffic service provided by NC 71.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that rehabilitation of
the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
4
Tha aat;matarI rnate nfthP attPrnativec cttidied_ based on current prices. are as follow:
Alternate A`
24ane
(Recommended) Alternate B
.2-lane with
; on-site detour ` Alternate B
2-lane with
off site detour
Structure Removal $32,500.00 $32,500.00 $32,500.00
Structure $374,500.00 $374,500.00 $374,500.00
Roadway Approaches $522,305.00 $197,707.50 $197,707.50
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $321,195.00 $220,792.50 $220,792.50
Engineering and Contingencies $220,000.00 $145,000.00 $145,000.00
Right-of-Way / Const. Easemt./ Util. $55,000.00 $48,000.00 $48,000.00
Additional Right-turn Lane $30,000.00 $40,000.00 * $40,000.00 *
SUBTOTAL $1,555,500.00 $1,058,500.00 $1,058,500.00
Temporary On-Site Detour NA $442,000.00 NA
TOTAL $1,555,500.00 $1,500,500.00 $1,058,500.00
Alternate A
3-lane Alternate B
3-lane with
on-site detour Alternate B
3-lane with
off-site detour
Structure Removal $32,500.00 $32,500.00 $32,500.00
Structure $504,000.00 $504,000.00 $504,000.00
Roadway Approaches $628,320.00 $347,360.00 $347,360.00
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $322,000.00 $275,000.00 $275,000.00
Engineering and Contingencies $223,180.00 $174,140.00 $174,140.00
Right-of-Way / Const. Easement / Util. $55,000.00 $58,000.00* $58,000.00*
SUBTOTAL $1,765,000.00 $1,391,000.00 $1,391,000.00
Temporary On-Site Detour NA $442,000.00 NA
TOTAL $1,765,000.00 $1,833,000.00 $1,391,000.00
* NOTE: The additional right-of-way required is included and assumed to cost $1 u,uuu.
5
VI. RECOMMENDED RVIPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 16 will be replaced 12 meters (40 ft) west of the existing alignment with a two-lane bridge
(Alternate A). The new structure will have a clear roadway width of 9.2 meters (30 ft) and a length
of 58 meters (190 ft). A 137.2 meter (450 ft) right-turn lane will be provided into the Campbell Soup
facility. The roadway grade of the new bridge will be approximately the same elevation as the existing
bridge grade. Traffic will be maintained on the existing structure during construction. SR 1435 will
be realigned to tie into NC 71 and SR 1461 will be realigned to tie into SR 1435. The total length of
this alternate, including the approaches, is 820 meters (2690 ft).
Although it is less costly ($55,000) to replace the bridge in its existing location and maintain traffic
with a temporary, on-site detour (Alternate B), it is more desirable to replace the bridge west of the
existing location for safer maintenance of traffic, especially truck traffic, in the immediate vicinity.
Alternate A also provides a better alignment at the intersection of SR 1435 and SR 1461 where three
of the nine accidents occurred in the three-year period from 1992 to 1995.
It was determined that the additional cost of providing a three-lane structure was not justified since
a 137.2 meter (450 ft) right-turn lane can be provided with the two-lane option. The existing right-
turn lane is approximately 80 meters (262 ft) long. The 137.2 meter (450 ft) right-turn lane will
provide storage for approximately five or six tractor-trailer trucks. The three-lane option would
provide storage for seven or eight tractor-trailer trucks and cost an additional $209,500 (based on
the new location alignment).
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
Material and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a number of
sources including the applicable U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute quadrangle mapping
(Wakulla, NC), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI)
mapping, Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) (formerly Soil Conservation Service) soils
information (USDA 1978,1967) and 1995 aerial photography (scale 1:1200) furnished by NCDOT.
The principal investigator for natural resources was Kevin Markham with Environmental Services,
Inc. Mr. Markham received his B.S. and M.S. degrees in Marine Biology from the University of
North Carolina, Wilmington. He has eight years of experience in coastal ecosystems evaluations,
wildlife surveys, wetland delineations, mitigation planning, and threatened and endangered species
issues.
The site was visited on April 16, 1996. Communities likely to be impacted by proposed
improvements were walked and visually surveyed for important features. Surveys were conducted
within a study corridor approximately 91.4 meters (300 ft) in width, symmetrical to the centerline of
each alignment. However, impact calculations are based on the approximate right-of-way and
6
temporary construction easements. Special concerns evaluated in the field include potential habitat
for protected species, wetlands, and water quality protection for the Lumber River.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community
classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant names follow
nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968). Jurisdictional areas were identified using the three
parameter approach (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, wetland hydrology) following U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were
characterized according to a classification scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979). Habitats
used by terrestrial wikllife and aquatic organisms, as well as expected population distributions, were
determined through field observations, evaluation of available habitat, and supportive documentation
(Martof et al. 1980; Webster et al. 1985; Menhinick 1991; Hamel 1992). Recreational fishing
potential was obtained from Fish (1968). Water quality information for area streams and tributaries
was derived from available sources (DEM 1989, DEM 1993). Quantitative sampling was not
undertaken to support existing data.
USFWS listings of federal protected species with ranges which extend into Robeson and Scotland
Counties were obtained prior to initiation of the field investigation. NHP records documenting
presence of federal or state listed species were consulted before commencing the field investigation.
The study corridor is located within the Coastal Plain physiographic province of North Carolina. The
landscape of the study corridor is characterized by broad interstream flats and gently rolling
topography. Elevations within the study corridor range from 55 to 58 meters (180 to 190 ft) (USGS
Wakulla, NC quadrangle).
There are three soil mapping units within the study corridor, the Bibb soils series (Typic
Fluvaquents), Kalmia loamy sand (Typic Hapeudults) and Norfolk/Faceville complex series (Typic
Paleudults). The Bibb series is a nationally listed hydric soil (USDA 1991). This series is a nearly
level, poorly drained soil found on flood plains, having formed in recent alluvium Permeability is
moderately rapid with a low shrink-swell potential. The seasonal high water table is at or near the
surface. The Kahnia series is a nearly level, well-drained soil found on stream terraces. The
Norfolk/Faceville complex consists of well-drained soils on side slopes. Permeability rates for these
nonhydric series are moderate, and they all display low to moderate shrink-swell potential. The
seasonal high water table is within 1.5 meters (5 ft) of the soil surface
WATER RESOURCES
The study corridor is within the Lumber River Drainage Basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit 03040203).
7
Bridge No. 16 crosses the Lumber River approximately 35 kilometers (22 mi) downstream from its
origin and approximately 84 kilometers (52 mi) upstream from the North Carolina-South Carolina
border. This section of the Lumber River has been assigned Stream Index Number 14-(4.5) by the
Division of Environmental Management (DEM).
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin. The section of the
Lumber River containing the study corridor has a best usage classification of B Sw HQW (DEM
1993). The designation B denotes that appropriate uses are primary recreation and other uses
suitable for Class C waters. Primary recreational activities include swimming, skin diving, water
skiing, and similar uses involving human body contact with water where such activities take place on
an organized or on a frequent basis. Class C uses include aquatic life propagation and survival,
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. Secondary recreations refers to human body
contact with waters on an infrequent or incidental basis. The Sw designation is used for swamp
waters characterized by low velocities, low pH, low dissolved oxygen levels, and high organic
content. The Lumber River is designated HQW (High Quality Waters) in the study corridor,
indicating that these waters are rated as excellent based on biological and physical/chemical
characteristics determined through DEM monitoring (DEM 1993).
The Lumber River is designated a North Carolina Natural and Scenic River. The Natural designation
indicates a segment of river and adjacent lands that are relatively free of anthropogenic discharges and
are generally inaccessible except by trails. The Scenic River designation indicates a segment of river
and adjacent lands in a similar natural condition, but accessibility includes roads. No Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW), WS-I, or WS-H waters occur within 1.6 kilometers (1 mi) of the study
corridor.
There are two permitted discharge sites located on the Lumber River in close proximity to the study
corridor. One discharge site (DEM site number 4) is the Laurinburg-Maxton Airport Waste Water
Treatment Plant with a permitted flow of 1.0 mgd, located downstream from the study corridor. The
second discharge site (DEM site number 5) is the Campbell Soup Company with a permitted
discharge of 1.3 mgd, located immediately downstream from the study corridor.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long-term trends in water
quality at fixed monitoring sites by sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrates (DEM 1991).
Species richness and overall biomass are considered to be reflections of water quality. A BMAN
biological monitoring station is located within the study corridor and two BMAN special study sites
are located in close proximity to the study corridor. BMAN biological monitoring station "B" is
located within the study corridor. The bioclassification rating at this station was Good (DEM 1991).
A BMAN special study site (DEM site number 3) is located approximately 5.6 kilometers (3.5 mi)
upstream from the study corridor, and another special study site (DEM site number 4) is located
approximately 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) downstream) from the study corridor. Both special study sites
received Excellent bioclassification ratings.
During the April 16, 1996 site visit, a warning sign from the State Health Director was found posted
in the study corridor stating that largemouth bass and bowfin in the Lumber River contain higher than
normal amounts of mercury. The warning recommended that ingestion of these fish be limited.
Stream Characteristics
The channel on the Lumber River is broad and deep, measuring approximately 36.6 meters (120 ft)
in width with a depth of approximately 4.6 meters (15 ft). The channel meanders extensively within
the vicinity of the study corridor. Banks within the study corridor slope gradually, ranging from 0
to 0.9 meter (0 to 3 ft) in height. The banks are composed of soil, with grass, shrub, and forest
vegetation present. The channel substrate is composed of sand. Organic debris within the channel
includes pilings, branches, and leaves. Aquatic vegetation is limited in extent, with submergent and
emergent species present. Flow was moderate and exhibited low turbidity at the time of this survey.
Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Short-term impacts to water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, can be anticipated from
construction-related activities. Adverse impacts will be minimized by the implementation of the
NCDOT Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters (BMPs), as applicable, during
construction.
No adverse long-term impacts to water resources are expected to result from proposed
improvements. The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of present flow rates
thereby protecting stream integrity.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Plant Communities
Four distinct plant communities were identified within the study corridor. Two communities,
identified as bottomland hardwood forest and mixed pine-hardwood forest, represent natural plant
communities. Two communities, successional and urban/disturbed land represent areas where
disturbance has substantially affected the natural vegetative cover. The plant communities are
described below.
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Wet areas found contiguous to the Lumber River exhibit bottomland hardwood vegetation. The
canopy is dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum), willow oak (Quercus phellos), sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), and black gum (Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora). Scattered bald cypress
(Taxodium distichum) are found in the area. The midstory/shrub layer is characterized by red maple
and willow oak saplings. Yellow jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens) and greenbrier (Smilax
9
rotundifolia) are found sporadically throughout this community, and cane (Arundinaria gigantea)
and horse sugar (Symplocos tinctoria) are found on the slightly raised areas. Cinnamon fern
(Osmunda cinnamomea) and netted chain-fern (Woodnardia areolata) are found throughout this
community.
Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forest
Wet areas near the upland-wetland interface support pine-hardwood vegetation. The canopy is
dominated by willow oak, sweetgum, and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). The midstory/shrub layer is
characterized by saplings of canopy species in addition to red maple. Greenbrier is found throughout
this community.
Successional Land
This community is characterized as disturbed, early successional wetlands located along the
Alternative A approach. A wet depressional area lacking canopy vegetation is included in this
community- The small area within the study corridor included within this community is dominated
by herbs, primarily rushes (Juncos spp.).
Urban/Disturbed Land
This community includes roadside margins and areas where natural vegetation has been removed or
altered (residences and businesses). Vegetation is dominated by successional grasses and herbs as
well as planted exotics. Routine mowing maintains the vegetation at a short herbaceous stage.
Anticipated impacts to plant communities are estimated based on the amount of each plant community
present within the proposed right-of-way and temporary construction easements. Construction of
either of the alternatives and temporary detours is not expected to result in substantial adverse
impacts to plant communities within the study corridor. A summary of plant community impacts
which will result from construction activities is presented below.
10
Table 1. Estimated plant community impacts.
PLANT COMMUNITY

Alternative A ESTIMATED IMPACTS
in hectares (acres in parentheses)
Alternative B Temporary
Detour 1

Temporary
Detour 2
Bottomland Hardwood 0.62(l.52) 0.03 (0.08) 0.20 (0.49) 0.25 (0.61)
Forest
Mixed Pine-Hardwood 0.06 (0.15) 0.00 (0.00) 0.04 (0.11) 0.00 (0.00)
Forest
Successional Land 0.06 (0.14) 0.01 (0.02) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00)
Urban/Disturbed 1.42 (3.52) 0.58(l.43) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00)
TOTAL: 2.16 (5.33) 0.62(l.53) 0.24 (0.60) 0.25 (0.61)
Alternative B will impact approximately 1.54 hectares (3.80 ac) less of the plant communities than
Alternative A. Most of the impacts associated with either alternative will occur in urban/disturbed
land. Alternative A is expected to have more impacts to natural communities than Alternative B.
Alternative B avoids most impacts to bottomland hardwood forest cover.
Temporary on-site detour alternatives exhibit approximately the same impacts to natural communities
within the study corridor. Impacts to plant communities as a result of either detour alternative are
temporary. Upon completion of the bridge replacement, fill associated with the temporary detour will
be removed and the area will be restored.
Wildlife
Terrestrial
The study corridor consists of a large contiguous tract of bottomland forest surrounded by residential
and disturbed areas. Expected mammalian species include marsh rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris), golden
mouse (Ochrotomys nuttalli), bobcat (Fells rufus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), raccoon
(Procyon lotor), southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
Wrginianus). Expected avifaunal species typical of bottomland communities include hooded warbler
(lilsonia citrina), wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria citrea),
yellow-throated warbler (Dendroica dominica), great crested flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitus),
summer tanager (Piranga rubra), yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccy=s americanus), wood duck (Aix
sponsa), and barred owl (Stria varia).
This segment of the Lumber River is considered excellent for fishing (Fish 1968). Expected aquatic
recreational fishing species include redfin pickerel (Esox americanus), chain pickerel (Esox niger),
warmouth (Lepomis gulosus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), yellow perch (Perca flavescens),
bowfin (Amia calva), and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). Golden shiner (Notemigonus
crysoleucas) and dusky shiner (Notropis cummingsae) are nongame species common to the area.
Bottomland communities typically support diverse populations of reptile and amphibian species.
Expected species include eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), marbled salamander
(Ambystoma opacum), southern dusky salamander (Desmognathus auriculatus), southern cricket frog
(Acris gryllus), green treefrog (Hyla cinerea), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), pickerel frog (Rana
palustris), southern leopard frog (Rana utricularia), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentine), mud
snake (Farancia abacura), redbelly water snake (Nerodia erythrogaster), eastern ribbon snake
(Thamnophis sauritus), and cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus).
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, the proposed bridge replacement
will not result in substantial loss or displacement of known terrestrial or aquatic animal populations.
Maintenance of regular flow and stream integrity will minimise potential down-stream impacts to
aquatic habitat. In addition, permanent and temporary impacts to downstream habitat from increased
sediment during construction will be minimized by the implementation of the NCDOT Biol
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters.
SPECIAL TOPICS
Surface waters within embankments of the Lumber River are subject to jurisdictional consideration
under Section 404 as "waters of the United States" (33 CFR 328.3). The open waters of the Lumber
River within the study corridor exhibit characteristics of riverine, lower perennial, unconsolidated
bottom, permanently flooded waters (R2UBH).
Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) are defined
by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of
hydrology at or near the surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season (DOA 1987).
Based on this three parameter approach, jurisdictional wetlands do occur within the study corridor
floodplain. Three wetland types have been identified which correspond to the bottomland hardwood
forest, mixed pine-hardwood forest, and successional land communities.
The bottomland hardwood forest exhibits characteristics of palustrine forested, broad-leaved
12
deciduous, seasonally flooded wetlands (PFO1 C). Wetland hydrology in this community is
maintained primarily by inundation from the river channel.
The wet mixed pine-hardwood forest exhibits characteristics of palustrine forested, broad-leaved
deciduous/needle leaved evergreen, temporarily flooded wetlands (PFO1/4A). Wetland hydrology
in this community is maintained primarily by temporary inundation from river channel overflow and
overland flow and runoff from adjacent uplands.
The wet successional land is classified as palustrine emergent, persistent, temporarily flooded
wetlands (PEM1 A). Wetland hydrology in this community is maintained primarily by runoff from
adjacent roadways and uplands, and to a lesser extent, temporary inundation from the river channel.
The following table summarizes impacts to wetlands which will result from the bridge replacement
alternatives and temporary detours.
Table 2. Estimated wetland impacts.
WETLAND ESTIMATED D. PACTS
TYPE in hectares (acres in parentheses)
Alternative A Alternative B Temp. Detour 1 Temp. Detour 2
PFO1C 0.61(l.52) 0.03 (0.08) 0.20 (0.49) 0.25 (0.61)
PFO1 /4A 0.06 (0.15) 0.00 (0.00) 0.04 (0.11) 0.00 (0.00)
PEM1A 0.06 (0.15) 0.01 (0.02) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00)
TOTAL: 0.73(l.81) 0.04 (0.10) 0.24 (0.60) 0.00 (0.00)
Alternative A will impact approximately 0.69 hectare (1.71 ac) more wetlands than Alternative B.
Approximately 0.58 hectare (1.44 ac) of the additional wetlands impact with Alternative A will occur
in the bottomland hardwood forest (PFO1 Q. Bridging of the Lumber River will minimise impacts
to surface waters.
Temporary on-site detour alternatives would each impact nearly the same amount of wetlands, but
exhibit a minor variation in the distribution of impacts among wetland types. Impacts to wetland
communities as a result of either detour alternative are temporary. Upon completion of the bridge
replacement, fill associated with the temporary detour will be removed and the area will be restored.
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands are anticipated from project construction. In accordance with
provisions of Section 404 of the CWA, a permit will be required from the COE for the discharge of
dredge or fill material into "Waters of the United States."
13
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A) (23) is likely to be applicable for all impacts to Waters of
the United States from the proposed project. This permit authorizes activities undertaken, assisted,
authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or part, by another federal agency or department
where:
(1) that agency or department has determined pursuant to the council on environmental quality
regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy
Act that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither individually
nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment; and,
(2) the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or department's
application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination.
This project-will also require a 401 Water Quality General Certification from the DEM prior to the
issuance of a Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the CWA requires that the state issue or deny water
quality certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to
Waters of the United States.
Final decisions concerning applicable permits rests with the COE.
Navigable waters supporting significant interstate or international commerce traffic are subject to a
Coast Guard Bridge Permit in accordance with Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Bridge
No. 16 over the Lumber River is not presently listed by the Coast Guard as a bridge over navigable
waters; however, bridges on the Lumber River downstream from Bridge No. 16 are listed as bridges
over navigable waters (USDT 1984). Navigability is determined by the Coast Guard on a case-by-
case basis. The Coast Guard has determined that a Coast Guard permit will not be required for this
project (see Appendix for Coast Guard letter).
Nfitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not proposed for this project. The existing bridge and approaches will
be removed to pre-construction contour and revegetated with native tree species at 320 stems per
acre.
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), proposed endangered, and
proposed threatened are protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The following federal protected species are listed for Robeson and Scotland
Counties (August 23, 1996 USFWS list):
14
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
American chaffseed (Schualbea americana) -E (Scotland County)
Canby's dropwort (Oxypolis canbyi) - E (Scotland County)
N ichaux's sumac (Rhos michauxii) - E
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia) - E (Scotland County)
American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) - T(S/A)
Red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) - Primary nest sites for RCWs include open pine stands greater
than 60 years of age with little or no mid-story development. Foraging habitat is comprised of open
pine or pine/mixed hardwood stands 30 years of age or older (Henry 1989). NHP records indicate
that no RCWs have been documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the study corridor. No
suitable habitat was found within the study corridor. The small amount of mixed pine-hardwood
forest is not contiguous with any potential nesting habitat.
This prcject_is not expected to affect RCWs due to the absence of suitable nesting habitat (stand-sized
pine or pine-hardwood forest containing pines greater than 60 years) and the isolated status of mixed
pine-hardwood forest within the study corridor. The distance to the nearest known RCW colony
(greater than 1.6 kilometers [ 1.0 mi]) reduces the chances that the pine-hardwood forest within the
study corridor is being utilized for foraging.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
American chaffseed - This is a perennial, root-parasitic herb (Kral 1983) that occurs in grass/sedge
assemblages with moist acidic sandy loams or sandy peat loams. NHP records indicate that this
species has not been documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the study corridor. No suitable
habitat for this species is found within the study corridor.
This project is not expected to affect American chaffseed because roadside margins within the study
corridor are generally well-drained and regularly maintained and do not provide habitat for American
chaffseed.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Canby's dropwart - Canby's dropwart grows in Coastal Plain habitats characterized by acidic, deep,
poorly-drained soils with a high organic content and with little or no canopy cover (USFWS 1992).
Typical habitats include wet meadows, wet pine savannas, ditches, sloughs, and edges of cypress
ponds. NHP records indicate that this species has not been documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0
mi) of the study corridor. No suitable habitat for this species is found within the study corridor.
This project is not expected to affect Canby's dropwort because roadside margins within the study
corridor are generally well-drained and regularly maintained and do not provide habitat for Canby's
dropwort.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
15
Michaux's sumac - Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent, deciduous, rhizomatous shrub that
tends to grow in disturbed areas where competition is reduced by periodic fire or other disturbances,
such as roadside margins and utility right-of-ways. This species is primarily found in the Piedmont
and Sandhdls and is not expected in the Coastal Plain. NHP records indicate that this species has not
been documented within 3 kilometers (2 mi) of the study corridor. Roadside margins are regularly
maintained and do not provide habitat for sumac.
This project is not expected to affect Michaux's sumac because roadside margins within the study
corridor are regularly maintained and do not provide habitat for Michaux's sumac.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Rough-leaved loosestrife - The rough-leaved loosestrife is a rhizomatous perennial that typically
occurs along the ecotone between long-leaf pine savannas and wetter, shrubby areas, where lack of
canopy vegetation allows abundant sunlight into the herb layer. The loosestrife is endemic to Coastal
Plain and Sandhill regions of the Carolinas. NHP records indicate that this species has not been
documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the study corridor. No suitable habitat for this species
is found within the study corridor.
This project is not expected to affect rough-leaved loosestrife because roadside margins are generally
well-drained and regularly maintained and do not provide habitat for rough-leaved loosestrife.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
American alligator - American alligator is listed as threatened based on the similarity in appearance
to other federally-listed crocodilians; however, there are no other crocodilians within North Carolina.
American alligators can be found in a variety of freshwater to estuarine aquatic habitats including
swamp forests, marshes, large streams and canals, and ponds and lakes.
Potential habitat for American alligator exists within the study corridor. Construction activities may
temporarily displace any American alligators in the vicinity; however, no long-term impact to
American alligator is anticipated as a result of this project.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Federal species of concern - The August 23, 1996 USFWS list also includes a category of species
designated as "Federal species of concern" (FSC). The FSC designation provides no federal
protection for the species listed. NHP files do not document any FSC within the study corridor. The
following are listed as FSC for Robeson and/or Scotland Counties:
Common Name Scientific Name Potential Habitat
Rafinesque's big-eared bat Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) raftnesquii N
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis N
Northern pine snake Pituophis melanleucas melanoleucas N
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus N
Carolina gopher frog Rana capito capito N
16
Atlantic pigtoe
Yellow lampmussel
Awned meadowbeauty
Bog spicebush
Boykin's lobelia
Carolina asphodel
Carolina bogmint
Dwarf burhead
Georgia indigo-bush
Conferva pondweed
Pickering's dawnflower
Resinous boneset
Roughleaf yellow-eyed grass
Sandhills bog lily
Sandhills milkvetch
Savanna campylopus
Spring-flowering goldenrod
Venus flytrap
Wavyleaf wild quinine
White wicky
Fusconaia masoni Y
Lampsilis cariosa Y
Rhexia aristosa N
Lindera subcoriacea N
Lobelia boykinii N
Tofieldia glabra N
Macbridea caroliniana Y
Echinodorus parvulus Y
Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana N
Potamogeton confervoides N
Stylisma pickeringii var. pickeringii N
Eupatorium resinosum Y
Xyris scabrifolia N
Lilium iridollae N
Astragalus michauxii N
Campylopus carolinae N
Solidago verna Y
Dionaea muscipula N
Parthenium radfordii N
Kalmia cuneata N
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina 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 et
seq.).
NBP records indicate that three state-protected species have been documented within the vicinity of
the study corridor, the three-awned meadow beauty (Rhexia aristosa), river frog (Rana heckscheri),
and pinewoods darter (Etheostoma mariae). No other state-listed species have been documented
within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the study corridor.
The state-Threatened (and FSC) awned meadow beauty has been documented at a site approximately
3.4 kilometers (2.1 mi) northeast of the study corridor. This species is typically found in savannas,
low pine woodlands, and ditches (Radford et al. 1968). No suitable habitat for this species is found
within the study corridor.
The state-Special Concern river frog has been documented within the study corridor. This species
is typically found in bottomland forests and swamp forests, and breeds in ponds near rivers and
streams (Martof et al. 1980). This project may temporarily displace this species from the study
corridor; however, the proposed bridge replacement is not expected to have adverse long-term effects
on this species.
17
The state-Special Concern pinewoods darter has been documented from a site within 3.2 kilometers
(2.0 mi) downstream from the study corridor. This species is typically found associated with
submerged aquatic vegetation in areas with a sandy or gravelly substrate. This fish may be locally
common in suitable habitat (Rohde et al. 1994). This project may temporarily displace this species
from the study corridor; however, the proposed bridge replacement is not expected to have adverse
long-term effects on this species.
Impacts to these species will be avoided/minimized to the greatest extent possible and notification to
the NHP will be given prior to construction.
VIII. CULTURAL RESOURCES
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 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that for federally
funded, licensed, or permitted projects, having an effect in properties listed on or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an
opportunity to comment.
In a concurrence form dated May 9, 1996 the Federal Highway Administration, NCDOT, and the
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred that there are no properties,
including Bridge No. 16, in the area of potential effect (APE) listed in or eligible for the National
Register (see Appendix for Concurrence Form).
In their April 22, 1996 letter, the SHPO stated that there are no known archaeological sites in the
proposed project area and it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may be eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places will be affected. They recommended no archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with this project (see Appendix for SHPO letter). Therefore,
the NCDOT has not conducted nor will conduct any archaeological work in connection with this
project.
Since there are no properties either listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
within the APE, no further compliance with Section 106 is required.
IX. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact by replacing a potentially unsafe bridge.
Inconvenience to motorists will be negligible since traffic will be maintained on site.
The project is considered a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and insignificant
environmental consequences.
18
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in confect with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulations. No significant
change in existing land use is expected to result from replacement of the bridge.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. No relocatees are expected with
implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The Lumber River is designated as a Natural and Scenic River and this project is subject to Section
4(o. There are no other publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges
of national,_ state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
Since the project will consist of replacing an existing bridge, the Farmland Protection Policy Act does
not apply.
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 demolition 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
2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise of Title
23, Code of Federal Regulations (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.
Robeson County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The bridge is
located in a Detailed Study Area. The Flood Boundary and Floodway Map is included in the
Appendix. This map indicates the limits of the 100-year and the 500-year floodplains as well as the
100-year floodway. Since the proposed bridge will be an in-kind replacement, it is not anticipated that
this project will have a significant adverse impact on the existing floodplain and floodway nor on the
associated flood hazard to the adjacent properties and buildings.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental effects
will result from implementation of the project.
19
XI. PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
The Lumber River is designated by the State of North Carolina as a Natural and Scenic River.
N.C.G.S. 113A-44 places restrictions on projects that may have direct and adverse effects on the
designated river segment and adjacent land. Such projects include dams, reservoirs, water conduits,
and transmission lines. In addition, because of this state designation, a 4(f) statement is required
before project work can begin.
Since this project necessitates the crossing of the Lumber River, a Natural and Scenic River and
meets the criteria set forth in the Federal Register, December 23, 1986, a programmatic Section 4(f)
evaluation satisfies the requirements of Section 4(f).
The following alternatives which avoid use of the 4(f) property have been fully evaluated: (a) do
nothing; (b) improve the highway without using the adjacent public park; and (c) build an improved
facility on new location without using the publicly owned public park. These alternatives were not
found to be feasible and prudent.
All possible planning to minimize harm to the Lumber River has been incorporated into this project.
The officials having jurisdiction over the Section 4(f) property have agreed, in writing, with the
assessment of impacts resulting from the use of the Section 4(f) property and with the mitigation
measures to be provided (see Appendix).
Mitigation measures include the following:
a) Before construction begins, the Division Engineer will insure that "Bridge Construction
Ahead" signs are placed at the boat access area off NC 71 on the upstream and downstream
sides of the bridge.
b) The Lumber River channel will be kept open to boating traffic during construction. Efforts
to maintain as wide a channel opening as possible during construction shall be made.
c) The locations of the new bridge piers shall be designed as much as possible so as not to
obstruct river traffic.
d) If pier footing(s) which are placed in the channel come within (3) three feet of the water's
surface, fins will be installed to indicate the presence of the footing(s) in order to protect
boats and the footing(s).
e) All restoration and landscaping of disturbed areas will be accomplished by incorporating only
native species.
20
f) Every effort will be made to keep an area open for boat access at the new bridge, similar to
what presently exists. The maintenance of this access area will not be the responsibility of
NCDOT.
Approval of the programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation by the Federal Highway Administrator is
included in the Appendix of this document.
21
REFERENCES
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. USFWS/OBS -79/31. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Tech.
Rpt. Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 100 pp.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1989. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient
Network (BMAN) Water Quality Review, 1983-1987. North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 193 pp.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality in
North Carolina Streams: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data Base and Long Term Changes in Water
Quality, 1983-1990. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Water Quality Section, Raleigh.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Classifications and Water Quality Standards
Assigned to the Waters of the Lumber River Basin. North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Fish, F.F. 1968. A Catalog of the Inland Fishing Waters of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Division of Inland Fisheries, Raleigh. 312 pp.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992. Endangered and Threatened Species of Southeastern
United States (The Red Book). U.S. Department of the Interior, Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994. Agency Draft Rough-leaved Loosestrife Recovery Plan.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 37 pp.
Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,
Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
Henry, V.G. 1989. Guidelines for Preparation of Biological Assessments and Evaluations for the
Red-cockaded Woodpecker. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast
Region, Atlanta, GA. 13 pp.
Kral, R. 1983. A Report on Some Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Forest-related Vascular Plants
of the South. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Technical Publication R8J-TP 2. 1305
PP.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of
22
the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 264 pp.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the Carolinas,
Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 222
PP.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, NC
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 325 pp.
U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1967. Scotland County Soil Survey. North Carolina. Soil
Conservation Service. 70 pp.
U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1978. Soil Survey of Robeson County, North Carolina.
Soil Conservation Service. 69 pp.
U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States. Soil
Conservation Service, Miscellaneous Publication 1491.
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDT). 1984. Bridges over Navigable Waters of the United
States. United States Coast Guard, Washington, DC. 216 pp.
Webster, W.D., Parnell, J.F. and Biggs, W.C., Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and
Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp.
23
,.
"x,
?:,, ti
??_? ;?'??;:4k:?a ?

???\ d
.?,1?? ?
?P ? ??' ?
?. J

ll,
O
N
Iu Vr

t
l
l' ' ?
M
d
NO. 16
S
FIGURE 3
II
oc
9
Q V)
Q
Z
°
o
a
W ME
LLA
I--

Q
w l
Z

°
zzQ m o Z

Z 4+
= ?-? W

U o °
U
o
C2
C) GC
=
v?

Z
ZUO
O

x M

Q W
a
a

°

c

O C'n
O
C? P4 U
LO
-'
?
z z 4

a

c
0
?.
0
xzz

F--i z

-cc
0

Z CD

V V
8
:?5? ?\
o
ci?
LAJ u-) W

00

Q1

U
m Ln
CD Q
0 .-. Q
LC) :w

Q M
W Q
= E
cz
r

W m e?
rr
rG
4- U
C
v
oyo
v
W
NT A
!(
w
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITH MINOR INVOLVEMENT
WITH PUBLIC PARKS, RECREATION LANDS, AND WILDLIFE AND
WATERFOWL REFUGES
F. A. Project BRSTP-71(1)
State Project 8.1462401
T. I. P. No. B-3392
Description: Bridge No. 16 along NC 71 over the Lumber River, Robeson County. See
Description, Page 6.
Yes No
1. Is the proposed project designed to
improve the operational characteristics,
safety, and/or physical condition of
existing highway facilities on 1
essentially the same location?
2. Is the project on new location? ? 1
3. Is the Section 4(f) land a publicly
owned public park, recreation land. or
wildlife and waterfowl refuge located X ?
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? ? 1
(See chart below)
Total size of section 4(i) site Maximum to be acquired
less than 10 acres .........
10 acres-100 acres .........
greater than 100 acres .........
10 percent of site
1 acre
1 percent of site
Yes No
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?
7 X
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 X
4(f) lands? -17
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 ? X
(e.g., former Federal surplus property)?
8. If the project involves lands described
in Item 7 above, does the appropriate
Federal Agency object to the land ? X
conversion or transfer?
9. Does the project require preparation of
an EIS? 7 X
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE
FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT
Yes No
The following alternatives were evaluated and ?
found not to be feasible and prudent: X
1. Do-nothim.
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
(a) correct capacity deficiencies? ? X
or (b) correct existing safety hazards? ? X
or (c) correct deteriorated conditions? ? X
and (d) create costs, unusual problems, or X ?
impacts of extraordinary measure?
2. Improvement of the highway without use ?
the adjacent public park, recreational x
land, or wildlife waterfowl refuge.
(a) Have minor alignment shifts,
changes in standards, use of
retaining walls, etc., or traffic
management measures been evaluated?
(b) The items in 2(a) would result in
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) substantial adverse community impact
or (ii) substantial increased costs
or-- (iii) unique engineering, transportation,
maintenance, or safety problems
or (iv substantial social, em-ironmental,
or economic impacts
or (v) a project which does not meet the need
an (vi impacts, costs, or problems which are
extraordinary magnitude
Yes \o
3. Build an imnro?•ed facilitvon ne«
location without using the public parr k.
recreational land. or wildlife and
waterfowl refu_ge._CMis_ w_quId_be a 1 ?
localized "run around.")
(a) An alternate on new location would
result in: (circle, as appropriate)
(i) project which does not solve
the existing problems
or (ii) ubstantial social,
environmental, or economic
impacts
or (iii) a substantial increase in
project cost or engineering
difficulties
and (iv) such impacts, costs, or
difficulties of truly unusual
or unique or extraordinary
magnitude
MINIIyIIZATION OF HARM
Yes No
1. The project includes all possible ?
planning to minimize harm.
2. Measures to minimize harm include the
following:
(circle those which are appropriate)
a. Replacement of lands used with lands
of reasonably equivalent usefulness
and location and of at least
comparable value.
b. Replacement of facilities impacted
by the project including sidewalks,
paths, benches, lights, trees, and
other facilities.
O 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.
Oe 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.
Additional or alternative mitigation
measures as determined necessary
based on consultation with the
officials having jurisdiction over
the parkland, recreation area, or
wildlife or waterfowl refuge.
3. A discussion of specific mitigation measures is provided as follows:
a. Before construction begins, the Division Engineer will insure that -'Bridge
Construction Ahead" signs are placed at the boat access area off NC 71 on the
upstream and downstream sides of the bridge.
b. The Lumber River channel will be kept open to boating traffic during construction.
Efforts to maintain as Mde a channel opening as possible during construction shall be
made.
c. The locations of the new bridge piers shall be designed as much as possible so as not
to obstruct river traffic.
d. If pier footing(s) which are placed in the channel come to within three (3) feet of the
water's surface, fins will be installed to indicate the presence of the footing(s) in
order to protect boats and the footing(s).
e. All restoration and landscaping of disturbed areas will be accomplished by
incorporating only native species.
f. Every effort will be made to keep a area open for boat access at the new bridge,
similar to what presently exists. The maintenance of this access area will not be the
responsibility of NCDOT.
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information prior to approval. Consult
Nationwide 4(f) evaluation.
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach Correspondence):
a. Officials having jurisdiction over
the Section 4(f) Land
Local/State/Federal Agencies
US Coast Guard
4. q.
(for bridges requiring bridge permits)
d. DOI, if Section 6(f) lands are
involved
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL,
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic 4(f) evaluation approved on
December 23, 1986.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are clearly applicable to
this project. There are no feasible or prudent alternatives which avoid use of the Section
4(f) land.
The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm, and there are assurances that
the measures to minimize harm will be incorporated in the project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed.
Approved:
Al j(96
ate Manager, Planning & En onm al Branch
NCDOT
1 Z1 r?'I ?6
Date _ Divis' Administrator, FHWA
Fen
NC 71 is classified as a rural major collector in the Statewide Functional Classification System.
The proposed project is located on NC 71 at the Robeson/Scotland County line, approximately 4
kilometers (2.5 mi) north of the town of Maxton. Land use around the study corridor is a mix of
agricultural and urban, with large tracts of natural vegetation occurring adjacent to the Lumber
River.
Near the bridge, NC 71 has a 6.7 meter (22 ft) pavement width with 1.8 meter (6 ft) shoulders.
An 80 meter (262 ft) long right-turn lane into the Campbell Soup facility is located north of the
existing bridge. The roadway approaches slope up toward the bridge. The horizontal alignment is
tangent on the bridge with a 430 meter radius (4 degree) curve approximately 210 meters (690 ft)
from the bridge to the south. The north approach is tangent. The roadway is situated
approximately 4.9 meters (16 ft) above the creek bed.
The traffic volumes were 7600 vehicles per day (vpd) for 1995 and projected to be 17,000 vpd for
the design year 2025. The volumes include 8% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 2% dual-
tired vehicles (DT). The posted speed limit is 88 kilometers per hour (55 mph) and signed down
to 72.4 kilometers per hour (45 mph) north of the bridge.
The existing bridge was built in 1957 (Figure 3). The superstructure consists of ten timber joist
spans. Bridge deck construction is a cast in place concrete floor deck with an asphalt wearing
surface. The substructure consists of creosote timber pile end bents and interior bents with
reinforced concrete caps.
The overall length of the bridge is 52.7 meters (173 ft). Clear roadway width is 8.5 meters (28
ft). The posted weight limit is 26,308.8 kilograms (29 tons) for single vehicles and legal gross
weight limit for tractor-trailer trucks.
Bridge No. 16 has a sufficiency rating of 23.0, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
Nine accidents were reported in the vicinity of the bridge during the period from April 1, 1992 to
March 31, 1995. The total accident rate for this period was 289.39 accidents per 100 million
vehicle kilometers (MVK). The total accident rate for two-lane, undivided rural North Carolina
routes for the period from 1992 through 1994 was 124.74 accidents per 100 MVK. The majority
of the accidents involved rear-end collisions and vehicles running off the road. There was no
single concentration of accidents; however, three of the nine accidents occurred near the
intersection of SR 1435 and SR 1461.
Telephone lines cross the stream west of the bridge, electric lines cross the stream east of the
bridge. Fiber optic lines are located southeast of the bridge and assumed to be within the existing
right-of-way. A 6-inch ductile iron force main sewer pipe is attached to the west side of the bridge
and a gaging station is attached to the east face of the bridge. Impacts to utilitiles are expected to
6
be medium as a result of the proposed project construction.
There are a total of six school bus crossings of this bridge daily. The Robeson County School
Transportation Director indicated that an off-site detour would cause problems in rerouting of
school bus traffic.
ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives were studied for replacing Bridge No. 16. A two-lane bridge and a three-lane
bridge were considered at each of the alternate locations. The two-lane option would provide a
137.2 meter (450 ft) right-turn lane into the Campbell Soup facility. The three-lane option would
provide a 146.3 meter (480 ft) right-turn lane into the Campbell Soup facility. This right-turn lane
would extend from the Campbell Soup facility across the new bridge. Each alternate consists of
replacing the existing bridge with a new structure having a length of 58 meters (190 ft) and a
width of either 9.2 meters (30 ft) for the two-lane structure or 12.4 meters (40 ft) for the three-
lane structure. The approach roadway will consist of a 7.2 meter (24 ft) travelway for the two-
lane option or a 10.8 meter (36 ft) travelway for the three-lane option with 2.4 meter (8 ft)
shoulders, 1.2 meter (4 ft) paved. The shoulder width will be increased to 3.4 meters (1 I ft)
where guardrail is warranted. Temporary, on-site detours were considered west (Temporary
Detour 1) and east (Temporary Detour 2) of the existing bridge. An off-site detour was not
considered for this site.
The alternate alignments studied are shown on Figure 2 and are as follow:
Alternate A - 2-lane (Recommendedl: involves replacing the bridge approximately 12 meters (40
ft) west of the existing alignment. The existing structure would be used for maintenance of traffic
during construction. The roadway grade of the new bridge would be approximately the same
elevation as the existing bridge grade. The design speed for this alternate is 100 kilometers per
hour (60 mph). The total length of this alternate, including the approaches, is 820 meters (2690
ft).
Alternate B - 2-lane with on-site detour: involves replacing the bridge at its existing location.
Traffic would be maintained with a temporary, on-site detour. The roadway grade of the new
bridge would be approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge grade. The design speed
for this alternate is 100 kilometers per hour (60 mph). A right-turn lane extending from the north
end of the bridge into the Campbell Soup facility would be provided. The total length of this
alternate, including the approaches, is 366 meters (1200 ft).
Alternate A - 3-lane: involves replacing the bridge approximately 12 meters (40 ft) west of the
existing alignment. The new bridge would require staged construction for the three-lane option.
The existing structure would be used for maintenance of traffic during construction. The roadway
grade of the new bridge would be approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge grade.
The design speed for this alternate is 100 kilometers per hour (60 mph).The total length of this
7
alternate, including the approaches, is 820 meters (2690 ft).
Alternate B - 3-1ane with on-site detour: involves replacing the bridge at its existing location.
Traffic would be maintained with a temporary, on-site detour. The roadway grade of the new
bridge would be approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge grade. The design speed
for this alternate is 100 kilometers per hour (60 mph). A right-turn lane extending from the north
end of the bridge into the Campbell Soup facility would be provided. The total length of this
alternate, including the approaches, is 366 meters (1200 ft).
The No-Build or "do-nothing" alternative was also considered but would eventually necessitate
closure of the bridge. This is not desirable due to the traffic service provided by NC 71.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that rehabilitation
of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
The estimated costs of the alternatives studied, based on current prices, are as follow:
Alternate A
2-lane
(Recommended) Alternate B
2-lane with
on-site detour Alternate B
2-lane with
off-site detour
Structure Removal $32,500.00 $32,500.00 $32,500.00
Structure $374,500.00 $374,500.00 $374,500.00
Roadway Approaches $522,305.00 $197,707.50 $197,707.50
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $321,195.00 $220,792.50 $220,792.50
Engineering and Contingencies $220,000.00 $145,000.00 $145,000.00
Right-of-Way / Const. Easemt./ Util. $55,000.00 $48,000.00 $48,000.00
Additional Right-turn Lane $30,000.00 $40,000.00 * $40,000.00 *
SUBTOTAL $1,555,500.00 $1,058,500.00 $1,058,500.00
Temporary On-Site Detour NA $442,000.00 NA
TOTAL $1,555,500.00 $1,500,500.00 $1,058,500.00
Alternate 'A
3-lane Alternate B
3-lane with
on-site detour Alternate B
3-lane with
off-site detour
Structure Removal $32,500.00 $32,500.00 $32,500.00
Structure $504,000.00 $504,000.00 $504,000.00
Roadway Approaches $628,320.00 $347,360.00 $347,360.00
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $322,000.00 $275,000.00 $275,000.00
Engineering and Contingencies $223,180.00 $174,140.00 $174,140.00
Right-of-Way / Const. Easement / Util. $55,000.00 $58,000.00* $58,000.00*
SUBTOTAL $1,765,000.00 $1,391,000.00 $1,391,000.00
Temporary On-Site Detour NA $442,000.00 NA
TOTAL $1,765,000.00 $1,833,000.00 $1,391,000.00
* NOTE: The additional right-of-way required is included and assumed to cost $10,000.
Bridge No. 16 will be replaced 12 meters (40 ft) west of the existing alignment with a two-lane
bridge (Alternate A). The new structure will have a clear roadway width of 9.2 meters (30 ft) and
a length of 58 meters (190 ft). A 137.2 meter (450 ft) right-turn lane will be provided into the
Campbell Soup facility. The roadway grade of the new bridge will be approximately the same
elevation as the existing bridge grade. Traffic will be maintained on the existing structure during
construction. SR 1435 will be realigned to tie into NC 71 and SR 1461 will be realigned to tie
into SR 1435. The total length of this alternate, including the approaches, is 820 meters (2690 ft).
Although it is less costly ($55,000) to replace the bridge in its existing location and maintain
traffic with a temporary, on-site detour (Alternate B), it is more desirable to replace the bridge
west of the existing location for safer maintenance of traffic, especially truck traffic, in the
immediate vicinity. Alternate A also provides a better alignment at the intersection of SR 1435
and SR 1461 where three of the nine accidents occurred in the three-year period from 1992 to
1995.
It was determined that the additional cost of providing a three-lane structure was not justified
since a 137.2 meter (450 ft) right-turn lane can be provided with the two-lane option. The existing
right-turn lane is approximately 80 meters (262 ft) long. The 137.2 meter (450 ft) right-turn lane
will provide storage for approximately five or six tractor-trailer trucks. The three-lane option
would provide storage for seven or eight tractor-trailer trucks and cost an additional $209,500
(based on the new location alignment).
10
aof North Carolina 9wi-13
e artment of Environment,
Ith and Natural Resources O?A
vision of Parks & Recreation A4
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
p E H N F?
Dr. Philip K. McKnelly, Director
August 23, 1996 G v?
MEMORANDUM
AU6 261996
1996
TO: H. Franklin Vick, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch IC,`
FROM: Marshall 1?(
Ellis ? Planning and Natural Resources Section
SUBJECT: Replacement of bridge #16 over the Lumber River at NC Highway 71, Robeson
and Scotland counties. Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-71(1). NCDOT TIP No.
B-3392. State Project #8.1462401.
The Division of Parks and Recreation (DPR) has reviewed the plans and Draft Nationwide
Section 4(f) evaluation for 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 on a stretch of the Lumber River that has been designated as a Scenic River
under the Natural and Scenic Rivers Act. It is very popular with recreational boaters.
Therefore, DPR requests that particular care and attention be given to mitigation measures,
especially those dealing with erosion and sedimentation control, restoration of disturbed areas,
warning signs, and the maintenance of an open channel for boating.
2. The DPR requests that all restoration and landscaping use only native species.
3. There is a public access boat ramp already in place at this site; it is not owned or maintained
by the division. However, given the recreational use along this stretch of the river, the DPR
asks that NCDOT consider keeping an area open for boat access at the new bridge. An access
at this bridge allows local boaters to keep their trip distances manageable.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project.
cc: James Sessoms, Superintendent, Lumber River State Park
LURIBR16
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ I()% post-consumer oaeAr
J ST AT[ o
Pte. ° "n
w
1 1
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
April 22, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook ?? ,
Deputy State is ric Preservation ficer
SUBJECT: Group XI Bridge Replacement Projects
Bridge 16 on NC 71 over Lumber River,
Robeson/Scotland Counties, B-3392, ER 96-8572
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your letter of March 13, 1996, concerning the above project.
We are aware of no structures of historic or architectural importance within the general
area of the project. We recommend that an architectural historian on your staff identify
and evaluate any structures over fifty years of age within the project area, and report the
findings to us.
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
Federal Aid # f3t?yTP " 71 TIP # ?' 33g2 County Vz&E- 0t4 /', fr AND
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description WLA&f, ft-10-e, 0#. lb ON NG'1l 0.1m wooomz Q.IVER
(nwpc-e Game x )
On representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
? Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
? there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential 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 arc properties over fifty years old (list attached) within 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:
G
RcI
(/_J
FH

Y_Ilu
the Divi
Representative; SHPO
inistrator, or other Federal Agency
State Historic Preservation Officer
Date
s
i?lL
if a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
??e
1:3 EHNR
April 15, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Phil Harris
From: Eric Galam14
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for Group XI 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), HOW (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 Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
i
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
Regulatory Branch
Action ID No. 199601562
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
April 11, 1996
o-
ate..
V`
?-MVIVG
Refetence your letter dated March 13, 1996, requesting comments regarding
the potential environmental impacts associated with the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Group XI Bridge Replacement Project,
Bridge No. 50 on NC Highway 903 over Little Contentnea Creek, at the Pitt
County and Greene County line, near Scuffleton, North Carolina, TIP B-1204.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates excavation and/or discharge
of excavated and/or fill material into waters of the United States, including
wetlands. The Corps of Engineers must assess the impacts of such activities
on the aquatic environment before a final permit decision can be made.
Federal permit authorization of fill activities within waters of the
United States pursuant to Section 404 requires that the project be water
dependant and/or that no practicable alternatives are available. Our initial
emphasis for review of NCDOT projects focuses on anticipated impacts to waters
and/or wetlands. However, if degradation to other aspects of the natural
environment (e.g., critical habitat of endangered species) is considered to be
of greater concern, an alternative resulting in greater aquatic losses may be
chosen as preferred. In all cases, and in accordance with the 1990 Mitigation
Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
the Corps, unavoidable impacts to wetland resources must be addressed prior to
the final permit decision.
Based upon our review of the documentation you provided, much more
information is needed for us to make a determination regarding the Ppderal,
permit requirements. Specifically, you should provide project plans which
describe the proposed work and indicate all impacts to waters of the United
States, including wetlands, associated with this project. Wetland impacts
should be described in terms of size, location, and type. This includes
temporary and permanent approach fills, and any borrow/waste activity that may
impact waters and/or wetlands.
Once this information becomes available, please provide it to the
Washington Regulatory Field Office for our review. As your planning process
continues, please be reminded that avoidance and minimization of impacts to
waters and wetlands should be undertaken to the maximum extent practicable.
In addition, a compensatory mitigation plan must be developed and approved
prior to the issuance of a Department of the Army permit.
-2-
Thank you for your time and cooperation. If you have any questions,
please contact Mr. Henry Wicker, Washington Regulatory Field Office,
telephone [phone], extension 25.
Sincerely,
e Fes'4
kL kL-tv'-
David M. Lekson, P.W.S.
Field Office Manager
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. Thomas Welborn, Chief
Wetlands Regulatory Section - Region IV
Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Mr. Larry Hardy
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. John Hefner
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
PP?N,EST op TyF United States Department of the Interior
Q
40 ym
a FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

'a Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726 ? C E I
?]
C v

ACH y ,a
Ralei
h
No
th C
li
27636
3726 ,?

"
g
,
r
aro
na
- ? 6
March 27, 1996
MAR
? 1996
Mr. H. Franklin Vick r_ GIwISICN U
Planning and Environmental Branch '?i HIGHW
N.C. Division of Highways' AYS
P.O. Box 25201 ????RONME??PI
Raleigh, NC 27611
Subject: Group XI Bridge Replacement Projects
Various counties, North Carolina (TIP Nos. B-1204, 2514, 2533,
2818, 2861, 2862, 2873, 2964, 3011, 3035, 3085, 3274, 3392, 3410)
Dear Mr. Vick:
This responds to your letter of March 13, 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 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 fourteen bridges in various Eastern 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 wetland impacts be avoided and minimized
to the maximum extent practicable as outlined in the glean 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):
1. A clearly defined purpose and need for the proposed project including a
discussion of the project's independent utility;
2. An analysis of the alternatives to the proposed project that were
considered, including 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 of the U.S., including wetlands, that
are to be 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
Corps 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 which 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 Bladen, Brunswick, Columbus,
Cumberland, Duplin, Durham, Greene, Pender, Pitt, Robeson, Scotland, Wayne, and
Wilson 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 accompanvinq 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,
State, and private activities in the project and cumulative effects
area;
C. Interrelated actions are those that are part of a larger action and
depend on the larger action for their justification;
d. Cumulative impacts of future State and private activities (not
requiring Federal agency involvement, that will be considered as
part of future Section 7 consultation);
5. Summary of evaluation criteria used as a measurement of potential effects;
6. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any listed
species or associated habitat including project proposals to
reduce/eliminate adverse effects;
7. Based on evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the project is
not likely to adversely affect or may affect threatened and endangered
species.
Candidate species are those plant and animal species for which the Service has
sufficient information on their biological status and threats to their survival
to propose them as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). Although candidate species receive no statutory protection under the ESA,
Federal a4encies are required to informally confer with the Service on actions
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of these species or that may destroy
or modify proposed critical habitat. Species of concern include those species
for which the Service does not have enough scientific information to support a
listing proposal or species which do not warrant listing at the present time.
Species of Concern receive no statutory protection under the ESA, but could
become candidates in the future if additional scientific information becomes
available indicating they are endangered or threatened. Formal listing places
the species under the full protection of the ESA, and necessitates a new survey
if its status in the project corridor is unknown. Therefore, it would be prudent
for the project to avoid any adverse impact to candidate species or their
habitat. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for
information on species under State protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please
continue to advise us of the progress made in the planning process, including
your official determination of the impacts of this project.
n
Si cQ e y yo s,
/ L/A?
`-' 1Wkls n Lan
Acting rie Supe visor
Attachments
cc: NCDEHNR-DEM
NCWRC
NMFS
FHWA
USACE
EPA
FWS/R4/KDoak/KHD:3-26-96/919-856-4520 ext 19/wp:BMAR96.SCP
US.DeWnment Commander Federal Building
o(TtQflSpOr?Ot?Of1 Fifth Coast Guard District 431 Crawford Street
Portsmouth. VA 29704-5W4
Staff Symbol:
COaftG?uard Phone: lowb)
(804) 98-6222
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.B., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
16590
20 Aug 96
This responds to your letters of 3une 13, 1996, requesting our
concurrence that Coast Guard Bridge Permits will not be required
for the proposed replacements of Bridge No. 256 over the
Northeast Cape Fear River, Bridge No. 1 over Sturgeon Creek, and
Bridges No. 16 and 103 over the Lumber River.
Section 107 of the Coaet Guard Authorization Act of 1982, Public
Law 97-322, exempts bridge projects from Coast Guard Bridge
Permits when the bridge project crosses nontidal waters which are
not used, susceptible to use in their natural condition, or
susceptible to use by reasonable improvement as a means to
transport interstate or foreign commerce. We have determined
that each of these bridge projects will cross a section of
waterway which meets these conditions. Accordingly, Coast Guard
Bridge permits will not be required for any of these bridges.
The fact that Coast Guard Bridge Permits will not be required for
these projects does not receive you of the responsibility for
compliance with the requirements of any other Federal, State or
local agency who may have jurisdiction by law over any other
aapect of the projects.
I you have any questions concerning these comments, please feel
free to contact me at [phone].
G2?199? ?
Sincerely,
/W .
4L?Z-
ANN B. DEATON
Chief, Bridge Administration Section
By direction of the Commander
Fifth Coast Guard District
V1ao
NC 71
Robeson and Scotland Counties
Bridge No. 16 over Lumber River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-71(1)
State Project No. 8.1462401
T.I.P. No. B-3392
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AND
PROGRAMMATIC 4(F) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
y H
Planning and Environmental Branch
It 2
DA
echo s I- Graf, P.E.
vision Administrator, FHWA
!Z'1, ?F(
DATE
NC 71
Robeson and Scotland Counties
Bridge No. 16 over Lumber River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-71(1)
State Project No. 8.1462401
T.I.P. No. B-3392
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AND
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
December, 1996
Documentation Prepared By Ko & Associates, P.C.
GA R
04
1/1eL t d?cY Q SEAL
Lisa Hilliard, P.E. o
Project Manager - Ko & Associates 1Kid
S. HI
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
L. Gail Grimes, P.E., Unit Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
Philip S. Harris, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
NC 71
Robeson and Scotland Counties
Bridge No. 16 over Lumber River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-71(1)
State Project No. 8.1462401
T.I.P. No. B-3392
Bridge No. 16 is included in the NCDOT 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program. The
location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is
classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
1. SLrM1 JARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
1. All standard procedures and measures, including NCDOT's Beat Management Prstctiees for
Protectiop,,,d KuEfilo Waters, will be implemented, as applicable, to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. , 1 Q t1 (,) s _11'_? 1 , e116 5 1', s
2. "Desiga.Stwudards in Sensitive Watersheds" in accordance with the Sedimentation Control
Guidelines (Title 15A 4B. 0024) will be implemented in High Quality Waters zones.
The location and installation of any required deck drains will be determined during final
destga Oges. L ,ISv,I _(,> (J-k-,,<
4. The ex*,* bridge . and approaches will be removed to pre-construction contour and
revegetated with setive tree species at 320 stems per acre. 14 P,,, ? 4 1 r
II. Si NDIARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 16 will be replaced immediately west of its existing location with a two-lane bridge.
Traffic will be maintained on the existing structure during construction. A right-turn lane that extends
from the north end of the bridge into the Campbell Soup facility will be provided.
The estimated cost for the proposed improvement is $1,555,500. The estimated cost of the project,
as shown in the NCDOT 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program, is $820,000 including
$70,000 for right-of-way and $750,000 for construction.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
NC 71 is classified as a rural major collector in the Statewide Functional Classification System. The
proposed project is located on NC 71 at the Robeson/Scotland County he, approximately 4
kilometers (2.5 mi) north of the town of Maxton. Land use around the study corridor is a mix of
agricultural and urban, with large tracts of natural vegetation occurring adjacent to the Lumber River.
Near the bridge, NC 71 has a 6.7 meter (22 ft) pavement width with 1.8 meter (6 ft) shoulders. An
80 meter (262 ft) long right-tum lane into the Campbell Soup facility is located north of the existing
bridge. The roadway approaches slope up toward the bridge. The horizontal alignment is tangent on
the bridge with a 430 meter radius (4 degree) curve approximately 210 meters (690 ft) from the
bridge to the south. The north approach is tangent. The roadway is situated approximately 4.9 meters
(16 ft) above the creek bed.
The traffic volumes were 7600 vehicles per day (vpd) for 1995 and projected to be 17,000 vpd for
the design year 2025. The volumes include 8% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 2% dual-tired
vehicles (DT). The posted speed limit is 88 kilometers per hour (55 mph) and signed down to 72.4
kilometers per hour (45 mph) north of the bridge.
The existing bridge was built in 1957 (Figure 3). The superstructure consists of ten timber joist
spans. Bridge deck construction is a cast in place concrete floor deck with an asphalt wearing
surface. The substructure consists of creosote timber pile end bents and interior bents with reinforced
concrete caps.
The overall length of the bridge is 52.7 meters (173 ft). Clear roadway width is 8.5 meters (28 ft).
The posted weight limit is 26,308.8 kilograms (29 tons) for single vehicles and legal gross weight
limit for tractor-trailer trucks.
Bridge No. 16 has a sufficiency rating of 23.0, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
Nine accidents were reported in the vicinity of the bridge during the period from April 1, 1992 to
March 31, 1995. The total accident rate for this period was 289.39 accidents per 100 million vehicle
kilometers (MVK). The total accident rate for two-lane, undivided rural North Carolina routes for
the period from 1992 through 1994 was 124.74 accidents per 100 MVK. The majority of the
accidents involved rear-end collisions and vehicles running off the road. There was no single
concentration of accidents; however, three of the nine accidents occurred near the intersection of SR
1435 and SR 1461.
Telephone lines cross the stream west of the bridge, electric lines cross the stream east of the bridge.
Fiber optic lines are located southeast of the bridge and assumed to be within the existing right-of-
way. A 6-inch ductile iron force main sewer pipe is attached to the west side of the bridge and a
gaging station is attached to the east face of the bridge. Impacts to utilities are expected to be medium
as a result of the proposed project construction.
There are a total of six school bus crossings of this bridge daily. The Robeson County School
Transportation Director indicated that an ofd site detour would cause problems in rerouting, of school
bus traffic.
2
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives were studied for replacing Bridge No. 16. A two-lane bridge and a three-lane
bridge were considered at each of the alternate locations. The two-lane option would provide a 137.2
meter (450 ft) right-turn lane into the Campbell Soup facility. The three-lane option would provide
a 146.3 meter (480 ft) right-turn lane into the Campbell Soup facility. This right-turn lane would
extend from the Campbell Soup facility across the new bridge. Each alternate consists of replacing
the existing bridge with a new structure having a length of 58 meters (190 ft) and a width of either
9.2 meters (30 ft) for the two-lane structure or 12.4 meters (40 ft) for the three-lane structure. The
approach roadway will consist of a 7.2 meter (24 ft) travelway for the two-lane option or a 10.8
meter (36 ft) travelway for the three-lane option with 2.4 meter (8 ft) shoulders, 1.2 meter (4 ft)
paved. The shoulder width will be increased to 3.4 meters (11 ft) where guardrail is warranted.
Temporary, on-site detours were considered west (Temporary Detour 1) and east (Temporary Detour
2) of the existing bridge. An off-site detour was not considered for this site.
The alternate alignments studied are shown on Figure 2 and are as follow:
Alternate A - 2-lane %minmendedl: involves replacing the bridge approximately 12 meters (40 ft)
west of the existing alignment. The existing structure would be used for maintenance of traffic during
construction. The roadway grade of the new bridge would be approximately the same elevation as
the existing bridge grade. The design speed for this alternate is 100 kilometers per hour (60 mph).
The total length of this alternate, including the approaches, is 820 meters (2690 ft).
Alternate B - 2-lane with on-site detour: involves replacing the bridge at its existing location. Traffic
would be maintained with a temporary, on-site detour. The roadway grade of the new bridge would
be approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge grade. The design speed for this alternate
is 100 kilometers per hour (60 mph). A right-turn lane extending from the north end of the bridge into
the Campbell Soup facility would be provided. The total length of this alternate, including the
approaches, is 366 meters (1200 ft).
Alternate A - 3-lane: involves replacing the bridge approximately 12 meters (40 ft) west of the
existing alignment. The new bridge would require staged construction for the three-lane option. The
existing structure would be used for maintenance of traffic during construction. The roadway grade
of the new bridge would be approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge grade. The design
speed for this alternate is 100 kilometers per hour (60 mph).The total length of this alternate,
including the approaches, is 820 meters (2690 ft).
Alternate B - 3-lane with on-site detour: involves replacing the bridge at its existing location. Traffic
would be maintained with a temporary, on-site detour. The roadway grade of the new bridge would
be approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge grade. The design speed for this alternate
is 100 kilometers per hour (60 mph). A right-turn lane extending from the north end of the bridge into
the Campbell Soup facility would be provided. The total length of this alternate, including the
3
approaches, is 366 meters (1200 ft).
The No-Build or "do-nothing" alternative was also considered but would eventually necessitate
closure of the bridge. This is not desirable due to the traffic service provided by NC 71.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that rehabilitation of
the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
4
Tho oet;matPri nnate nfthP attPr„ativec studied- based on current prices, are as follow:
Alternate A
24ane
(Recommended), Altermate B
2-lane with
-on-site detour Alternate B
2-lane with
off-site detour'
Structure Removal $32,500.00 $32,500.00 $32,500.00
Structure $374,500.00 $374,500.00 $374,500.00
Roadway Approaches $522,305.00 $197,707.50 $197,707.50
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $321,195.00 $220,792.50 $220,792.50
Engineering and Contingencies $220,000.00 $145,000.00 $145,000.00
Right-of-Way / Const. Easemt./ Util. $55,000.00 $48,000.00 $48,000.00
Additional Right-turn Lane $30,000.00 $40,000.00 * $40,000.00 *
SUBTOTAL $1,555,500.00 $1,058,500.00 $1,058,500.00
Temporary On-Site Detour NA $442,000.00 NA
TOTAL $1,555,500.00 $1,500,500.00 $1,058,500.00
Alternate A
3-lane Alternate B
3-lane with
on-site detour Alternate B
3-lane with
off-site detour
Structure Removal $32,500.00 $32,500.00 $32,500.00
Structure $504,000.00 $504,000.00 $504,000.00
Roadway Approaches $628,320.00 $347,360.00 $347,360.00
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $322,000.00 $275,000.00 $275,000.00
Engineering and Contingencies $223,180.00 $174,140.00 $174,140.00
Right-of-Way / Const. Easement / Util. $55,000.00 $58,000.00* $58,000.00*
SUBTOTAL $1,765,000.00 $1,391,000.00 $1,391,000.00
Temporary On-Site Detour NA $442,000.00 NA
TOTAL $1,765,000.00 $1,833,000.00 $1,391,000.00
* NOTE: The additional right-of-way required is included and assumed to cost $10,000.
5
VI. RECOMMENDED IlVIPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 16 will be replaced 12 meters (40 ft) west of the existing alignment with a two-lane bridge
(Alternate A). The new structure will have a clear roadway width of 9.2 meters (30 ft) and a length
of 58 meters (190 ft). A 137.2 meter (450 ft) right-turn lane will be provided into the Campbell Soup
facility. The roadway grade of the new bridge will be approximately the same elevation as the existing
bridge grade. Traffic will be maintained on the existing structure during construction. SR 1435 will
be realigned to tie into NC 71 and SR 1461 will be realigned to tie into SR 1435. The total length of
this alternate, including the approaches, is 820 meters (2690 ft).
Although it is less costly ($55,000) to replace the bridge in its existing location and maintain traffic
with a temporary, on-site detour (Alternate B), it is more desirable to replace the bridge west of the
existing location for safer maintenance of traffic, especially truck traffic, in the immediate vicinity.
Alternate A also provides a better alignment at the intersection of SR 1435 and SR 1461 where three
of the nine accidents occurred in the three-year period from 1992 to 1995.
It was determined that the additional cost of providing a three-lane structure was not justified since
a 137.2 meter (450 ft) right-tum lane can be provided with the two-lane option. The existing right-
turn lane is approximately 80 meters (262 ft) long. The 137.2 meter (450 ft) right-turn lane will
provide storage for approximately five or six tractor-trailer trucks. The three-lane option would
provide storage for seven or eight tractor-trailer trucks and cost an additional $209,500 (based on
the new location alignment).
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
Material and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a number of
sources including the applicable U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute quadrangle mapping
(Wakulla, NC), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI)
mapping, Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) (formerly Soil Conservation Service) soils
information (USDA 1978, 1967) and 1995 aerial photography (scale 1:1200) furnished by NCDOT.
The principal investigator for natural resources was Kevin Markham with Environmental Services,
Inc. Mr. Markham received his B.S. and M.S. degrees in Marine Biology from the University of
North Carolina, Wilmington. He has eight years of experience in coastal ecosystems evaluations,
wildlife surveys, wetland delineations, mitigation planning, and threatened and endangered species
issues.
The site was visited on April 16, 1996. Communities likely to be impacted by proposed
improvements were walked and visually surveyed for important features. Surveys were conducted
within a study corridor approximately 91.4 meters (300 ft) in width, symmetrical to the centerline of
each alignment. However, impact calculations are based on the approximate right-of-way and
6
temporary construction easements. Special concerns evaluated in the field include potential habitat
for protected species, wetlands, and water quality protection for the Lumber River.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community
classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant names follow
nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968). Jurisdictional areas were identified using the three
parameter approach (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, wetland hydrology) following U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were
characterized according to a classification scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979). Habitats
used by terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms, as well as expected population distributions, were
determined through field observations, evaluation of available habitat, and supportive documentation
(Martof et al. 1980; Webster et al. 1985; Menhinick 1991; Hamel 1992). Recreational fishing
potential was obtained from Fish (1968). Water quality information for area streams and tributaries
was derived from available sources (DEM 1989, DEM 1993). Quantitative sampling was not
undertaken to support existing data.
USFWS listings of federal protected species with ranges which extend into Robeson and Scotland
Counties were obtained prior to initiation of the field investigation. NHP records documenting
presence of federal or state listed species were consulted before commencing the field investigation.
The study corridor is located within the Coastal Plain physiographic province of North Carolina. The
landscape of the study corridor is characterized by broad interstream flats and gently rolling
topography. Elevations within the study corridor range from 55 to 58 meters (180 to 190 ft) (USGS
Wakulla, NC quadrangle).
There are three soil mapping units within the study corridor, the Bibb soils series (Typic
Fluvaquents), Kalmia loamy sand (Typic Hapludults) and Norfolk/Faceville complex series (Typic
Paleudults). The Bibb series is a nationally listed hydric soil (USDA 1991). This series is a nearly
level, poorly drained soil found on flood plains, having formed in recent alluvium Permeability is
moderately rapid with a low shrink-swell potential. The seasonal high water table is at or near the
surface. The Kalmia series is a nearly level, well-drained soil found on stream terraces. The
Norfolk/Faceville complex consists of well-drained soils on side slopes. Permeability rates for these
nonhydric series are moderate, and they all display low to moderate shrink-swell potential. The
seasonal high water table is within 1.5 meters (5 ft) of the soil surface
WATER RESOURCES
The study corridor is within the Lumber River Drainage Basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit 03040203).
7
Bridge No. 16 crosses the Lumber River approximately 35 kilometers (22 mi) downstream from its
origin and approximately 84 kilometers (52 mi) upstream from the North Carolina-South Carolina
border. This section of the Lumber River has been assigned Stream Index Number 14-(4.5) by the
Division of Environmental Management (DEM).
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin. The section of the
Lumber River containing the study corridor has a best usage classification of B Sw HQW (DEM
1993). The designation B denotes that appropriate uses are primary recreation and other uses
suitable for Class C waters. Primary recreational activities include swimming, skin diving, water
skiing, and similar uses involving human body contact with water where such activities take place on
an organized or on a frequent basis. Class C uses include aquatic life propagation and survival,
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. Secondary recreations refers to human body
contact with waters on an infrequent or incidental basis. The Sw designation is used for swamp
waters characterized by low velocities, low pH, low dissolved oxygen levels, and high organic
content. The Lumber River is designated HQW (High Quality Waters) in the study corridor,
indicating that these waters are rated as excellent based on biological and physical/chemical
characteristics determined through DEM monitoring (DEM 1993).
The Lumber River is designated a North Carolina Natural and Scenic River. The Natural designation
indicates a segment of river and adjacent lands that are relatively free of anthropogenic discharges and
are generally inaccessible except by trails. The Scenic River designation indicates a segment of river
and adjacent lands in a similar natural condition, but accessibility includes roads. No Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW), WS-I, or WS-H waters occur within 1.6 kilometers (1 mi) of the study
corridor.
There are two permitted discharge sites located on the Lumber River in close proximity to the study
corridor. One discharge site (DEM site number 4) is the Laurinburg-Maxton Airport Waste Water
Treatment Plant with a permitted flow of 1.0 mgd, located downstream from the study corridor. The
second discharge site (DEM site number 5) is the Campbell Soup Company with a permitted
discharge of 1.3 mgd, located immediately downstream from the study corridor.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long-term trends in water
quality at fixed monitoring sites by sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrates (DEM 1991).
Species richness and overall biomass are considered to be reflections of water quality. A BMAN
biological monitoring station is located within the study corridor and two BMAN special study sites
are located in close proximity to the study corridor. BMAN biological monitoring station "B" is
located within the study corridor. The bioclassification rating at this station was Good (DEM 1991).
A BMAN special study site (DEM site number 3) is located approximately 5.6 kilometers (3.5 mi)
upstream from the study corridor, and another special study site (DEM site number 4) is located
approximately 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) downstream) from the study corridor. Both special study sites
received Excellent bioclassification ratings.
During the April 16, 1996 site visit, a warning sign from the State Health Director was found posted
m the study corridor stating that largemouth bass and bowfin in the Lumber River contain higher than
normal amounts of mercury. The warning recommended that ingestion of these fish be limited.
Stream Characteristics
The channel on the Lumber River is broad and deep, measuring approximately 36.6 meters (120 ft)
in width with a depth of approximately 4.6 meters (15 ft). The channel meanders extensively within
the vicinity of the study corridor. Banks within the study corridor slope gradually, ranging from 0
to 0.9 meter (0 to 3 ft) in height. The banks are composed of soil, with grass, shrub, and forest
vegetation present. The channel substrate is composed of sand. Organic debris within the channel
includes pilings, branches, and leaves. Aquatic vegetation is limited in extent, with submergent and
emergent species present. Flow was moderate and exhibited low turbidity at the time of this survey.
Short-term impacts to water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, can be anticipated from
construction-related activities. Adverse impacts will be minimised by the implementation of the
NCDOT Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters (BMPs), as applicable, during
construction.
No adverse long-term impacts to water resources are expected to result from proposed
improvements. The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of present flow rates
thereby protecting stream integrity.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Plant Communities
Four distinct plant communities were identified within the study corridor. Two communities,
identified as bottomland hardwood forest and mixed pine-hardwood forest, represent natural plant
communities. Two communities, successional and urban/disturbed land represent areas where
disturbance has substantially affected the natural vegetative cover. The plant communities are
described below.
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Wet areas found contiguous to the Lumber River exhibit bottomland hardwood vegetation. The
canopy is dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum), willow oak (Quercus phellos), sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), and black gum (Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora). Scattered bald cypress
(Taxodium distichum) are found in the area. The midstory/shrub layer is characterized by red maple
and willow oak saplings. Yellow jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens) and greenbrier (Smilax
rotundifolia) are found sporadically throughout this community, and cane (Arundinaria gigantea)
and horse sugar (Symplocos tinctoria) are found on the slightly raised areas. Cinnamon fern
(Osmunda cinnamomea) and netted chain-fern (Woodmrdia areolata) are found throughout this
community.
Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forest
Wet areas near the upland-wetland interface support pine-hardwood vegetation. The canopy is
dominated by willow oak, sweetgum, and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). The midstory/shrub layer is
characterized by saplings of canopy species in addition to red maple. Greenbrier is found throughout
this community.
Successional Land
This community is characterized as disturbed, early successional wetlands located along the
Alternative A approach. A wet depressional area lacking canopy vegetation is included in this
community- The small area within the study corridor included within this community is dominated
by herbs, primarily rushes (Juncos spp.).
Urban/Disturbed Land
This community includes roadside margins and areas where natural vegetation has been removed or
altered (residences and businesses). Vegetation is dominated by successional grasses and herbs as
well as planted exotics. Routine mowing maintains the vegetation at a short herbaceous stage.
Anticipated Impacts to Plant Communities
Anticipated impacts to plant communities are estimated based on the amount of each plant community
present within the proposed right-of-way and temporary construction easements. Construction of
either of the alternatives and temporary detours is not expected to result in substantial adverse
impacts to plant communities within the study corridor. A summary of plant community impacts
which will result from construction activities is presented below.
10
Table 1. Estimated plant community impacts.
PLANT COMMUNITY
ESTIMATED IMPACTS
in hectares (acres in parentheses)
Alternative A Alternative B Temporary Temporary
Detour 1 Detour 2
Bottomland Hardwood 0,62 (1.52)° 0.03 (0.08) 0.20 (0.49) 0.25 (0.61)
Forest
Mixed Pine-Hardwood 0.06 (0.15) 0.00 (0.00) 0.04 (0.11) 0.00 (0.00)
Forest
Successional Land 0.06 (0.14) 0.01 (0.02) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00)
Urban/Disturbed 1.42 (3.52) 0.58(l.43) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00)
TOTAL: 2.16 (5.33) 0.62(l.53) 0.24 (0.60) 0.25 (0.61)
Alternative B will impact approximately 1.54 hectares (3.80 ac) less of the plant communities than
Alternative A. Most of the impacts associated with either alternative will occur in urban/disturbed
land. Alternative A is expected to have more impacts to natural communities than Alternative B.
Alternative B avoids most impacts to bottomland hardwood forest cover.
Temporary on-site detour alternatives exhibit approximately the same impacts to natural communities
within the study corridor. Impacts to plant communities as a result of either detour alternative are
temporary. Upon completion of the bridge replacement, fill associated with the temporary detour will
be removed and the area will be restored.
Wildlife
Terrestrial
The study corridor consists of a large contiguous tract of bottomland forest surrounded by residential
and disturbed areas. Expected mammalian species include marsh rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris), golden
mouse (Ochrotomys nuttalli), bobcat (Fells rufus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), raccoon
(Procyon lotor), southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
Wiginianus). Expected avifaunal species typical of bottomland communities include hooded warbler
(Wilsonia citrina), wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria citrea),
yellow-throated warbler (Dendroica dominica), great crested flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitus),
summer tanager (Piranga rubra), yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), wood duck (Aix
sponsa), and barred owl (Stria varia).
This segment of the Lumber River is considered excellent for fishing (Fish 1968). Expected aquatic
recreational fishing species include redfin pickerel (Esox americanus), chain pickerel (Esox niger),
warmouth (Lepomis gulosus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), yellow perch (Perca flavescens),
bowfin (Amia calva), and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). Golden shiner (Notemigonus
crysoleucas) and dusky shiner (Notropis cummingsae) are nongame species common to the area.
Bottomland communities typically support diverse populations of reptile and amphibian species.
Expected species include eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), marbled salamander
(Ambystoma opacum), southern dusky salamander (Desmognathus auriculatus), southern cricket frog
(Acris gryllus), green treefrog (Hyla cinerea), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), pickerel frog (Rana
palustris), southern leopard frog (Rana utricularia), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), mud
snake (Farancia abacura), redbelly water snake (Nerodia erythrogaster), eastern ribbon snake
(Thamnophis sauritus), and cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus).
Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, the proposed bridge replacement
will not result in substantial loss or displacement of known terrestrial or aquatic animal populations.
Maintenance of regular flow and stream integrity will minimize potential down-stream impacts to
aquatic habitat. In addition, permanent and temporary impacts to downstream habitat from increased
sediment during construction will be minimized by the implementation of the NCDOT D_gA
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters.
SPECIAL TOPICS
Surface waters within embankments of the Lumber River are subject to jurisdictional consideration
under Section 404 as "waters of the United States" (33 CFR 328.3). The open waters of the Lumber
River within the study corridor exhibit characteristics of riverine, lower perennial, unconsolidated
bottom, permanently flooded waters (R2UBH).
Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) are defined
by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of
hydrology at or near the surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season (DOA 1987).
Based on this three parameter approach, jurisdictional wetlands do occur within the study corridor
floodplain. Three wetland types have been identified which correspond to the bottomland hardwood
forest, mixed pine-hardwood forest, and successional land communities.
The bottomland hardwood forest exhibits characteristics of palustrine forested, broad-leaved
12
deciduous, seasonally flooded wetlands (PFO1 C). Wetland hydrology in this community is
maintained primarily by inundation from the river channel.
The wet mixed pine-hardwood forest exhibits characteristics of palustrine forested, broad-leaved
deciduous/needle leaved evergreen, temporarily flooded wetlands (PFO1 /4A). Wetland hydrology
in this community is maintained primarily by temporary inundation from river channel overflow and
overland flow and runoff from adjacent uplands.
The wet successional land is classified as palustrine emergent, persistent, temporarily flooded
wetlands (PEM 1 A). Wetland hydrology in this community is maintained primarily by runoff from
adjacent roadways and uplands, and to a lesser extent, temporary inundation from the river channel.
The following table summarizes impacts to wetlands which will result from the bridge replacement
alternatives and temporary detours.
Table 2. Estimated wetland impacts.
WETLAND ESTIMATED IMPACTS
TYPE in hectares (acres in parentheses)
Alternative A Alternative B Temp. Detour 1 Temp. Detour 2
PFO 1 C 0.61(l.52)
PFOI /4A 0.06 (0.15)
PEM1A 0.06 (0.15)
0.03 (0.08)
0.00 (0.00)
0.01 (0.02)
0.20 (0.49)
0.04 (0.11)
0.00 (0.00)
0.25 (0.61)
0.00 (0.00)
0.00 (0.00)
TOTAL: 0.73(l.81) 0.04 (0.10) 0.24 (0.60) 0.00 (0.00)
Alternative A will impact approximately 0.69 hectare (1.71 ac) more wetlands than Alternative B.
Approximately 0.58 hectare 0.44 ac) of the additional wetlands impact with Alternative A will occur
in the bottomland hardwood forest (PFO1 Q. Bridging of the Lumber River will minimise impacts
to surface waters.
Temporary on-site detour alternatives would each impact nearly the same amount of wetlands, but
exhibit a minor variation in the distribution of impacts among wetland types. Impacts to wetland
communities as a result of either detour alternative are temporary. Upon completion of the bridge
replacement, fill associated with the temporary detour will be removed and the area will be restored.
Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands are anticipated from project construction. In accordance with
provisions of Section 404 of the CWA, a permit will be required from the COE for the discharge of
dredge or fill material into "Waters of the United States."
13
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A) (23) is likely to be applicable for all impacts to Waters of
the United States from the proposed project. This permit authorizes activities undertaken, assisted,
authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or part, by another federal agency or department
where:
(1) that agency or department has determined pursuant to the council on environmental quality
regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy
Act that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither individually
nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment; and,
(2) the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or department's
application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination.
This project.will also require a 401 Water Quality General Certification from the DEM prior to the
issuance of a Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the CWA requires that the state issue or deny water
quality certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to
Waters of the United States.
Final decisions concerning applicable permits rests with the COE.
Navigable waters supporting significant interstate or international commerce traffic are subject to a
Coast Guard Bridge Permit in accordance with Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Bridge
No. 16 over the Lumber River is not presently listed by the Coast Guard as a bridge over navigable
waters; however, bridges on the Lumber River downstream from Bridge No. 16 are listed as bridges
over navigable waters (USDT 1984). Navigability is determined by the Coast Guard on a case-by-
case basis. The Coast Guard has determined that a Coast Guard permit will not be required for this
project (see Appendix for Coast Guard letter).
Compensatory mitigation is not proposed for this project. The existing bridge and approaches will
be removed to pre-construction contour and revegetated with native tree species at 320 stems per
acre.
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), proposed endangered, and
proposed threatened are protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The following federal protected species are listed for Robeson and Scotland
Counties (August 23, 1996 USFWS list):
14
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana) -E (Scotland County)
Canby's dropwort (Oxypolis canbyi) - E (Scotland County)
Michaux's sumac (Rhos michauxii) - E
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia) - E (Scotland County)
American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) - T(S/A)
Red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) - Primary nest sites for RCWs include open pine stands greater
than 60 years of age with little or no mid-story development. Foraging habitat is comprised of open
pine or pine/mixed hardwood stands 30 years of age or older (Henry 1989). NHP records indicate
that no RCWs have been documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the study corridor. No
suitable habitat was found within the study corridor. The small amount of mixed pine-hardwood
forest is not contiguous with any potential nesting habitat.
This project_is not expected to affect RCWs due to the absence of suitable nesting habitat (stand-sized
pine or pine-hardwood forest containing pines greater than 60 years) and the isolated status of mixed
pine-hardwood forest within the study corridor. The distance to the nearest known RCW colony
(greater than 1.6 kilometers [ 1.0 mi]) reduces the chances that the pine-hardwood forest within the
study corridor is being utilized for foraging.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
American chaffseed - This is a perennial, root-parasitic herb (Kral 1983) that occurs in grass/sedge
assemblages with moist acidic sandy loams or sandy peat loams. NHP records indicate that this
species has not been documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the study corridor. No suitable
habitat for this species is found within the study corridor.
This project is not expected to affect American chaffseed because roadside margins within the study
corridor are generally well-drained and regularly maintained and do not provide habitat for American
chaffseed.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Canby's dropwart - Canbys dropwart grows in Coastal Plain habitats characterized by acidic, deep,
poorly-drained soils with a high organic content and with little or no canopy cover (USFWS 1992).
Typical habitats include wet meadows, wet pine savannas, ditches, sloughs, and edges of cypress
ponds. NHP records indicate that this species has not been documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0
mi) of the study corridor. No suitable habitat for this species is found within the study corridor.
This project is not expected to affect Canby's dropwort because roadside margins within the study
corridor are generally well-drained and regularly maintained and do not provide habitat for Canby's
dropwort.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
15
Michaux's sumac - Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent, deciduous, rhizomatous shrub that
tends to grow in disturbed areas where competition is reduced by periodic fire or other disturbances,
such as roadside margins and utility right-of-ways. This species is primarily found in the Piedmont
and Sandhills and is not expected in the Coastal Plain. NHP records indicate that this species has not
been documented within 3 kilometers (2 mi) of the study corridor. Roadside margins are regularly
maintained and do not provide habitat for sumac.
This project is not expected to affect Michaux's sumac because roadside margins within the study
corridor are regularly maintained and do not provide habitat for Michaux's sumac.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Rough-leaved loosestrife - The rough-leaved loosestrife is a rhizomatous perennial that typically
occurs along the ecotone between long-leaf pine savannas and wetter, shrubby areas, where lack of
canopy vegetation allows abundant sunlight into the herb layer. The loosestrife is endemic to Coastal
Plain and Sandhill regions of the Carolinas. NHP records indicate that this species has not been
documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the study corridor. No suitable habitat for this species
is found within the study corridor.
This project is not expected to affect rough-leaved loosestrife because roadside margins are generally
well-drained and regularly maintained and do not provide habitat for rough-leaved loosestrife.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
American alligator - American alligator is listed as threatened based on the similarity in appearance
to other federally-listed crocodilians; however, there are no other crocodilians within North Carolina.
American alligators can be found in a variety of freshwater to estuarine aquatic habitats including
swamp forests, marshes, large streams and canals, and ponds and lakes.
Potential habitat for American alligator exists within the study corridor. Construction activities may
temporarily displace any American alligators in the vicinity; however, no long-term impact to
American alligator is anticipated as a result of this project.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Federal species of concern - The August 23, 1996 USFWS list also includes a category of species
designated as "Federal species of concern" (FSC). The FSC designation provides no federal
protection for the species listed. NHP files do not document any FSC within the study corridor. The
following are listed as FSC for Robeson and/or Scotland Counties:
Common Name Scientific Name Potential Habitat
Rafinesque's big-eared bat Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) raf nesquii N
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis N
Northern pine snake Pituophis melanleucas melanoleucas N
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus N
Carolina gopher frog Rana capito capito N
16
Atlantic pigtoe
Yellow lampmussel
Awned meadowbeauty
Bog spicebush
Boykin's lobelia
Carolina asphodel
Carolina bogmint
Dwarf burhead
Georgia indigo-bush
Conferva pondweed
Pickering's dawnflower
Resinous boneset
Roughleaf yellow-eyed grass
Sandhills bog lily
Sandhills milkvetch
Savanna campylopus
Spring-flowering goldenrod
Venus flytrap
Wavyleaf wild quinine
White wicky
Fusconaia masoni Y
Lampsilis cariosa Y
Rhexia aristosa N
Lindera subcoriacea N
Lobelia boykinii N
Tofieldia glabra N
Macbridea caroliniana Y
Echinodorus parvulus Y
Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana N
Potamogeton confervoides N
Stylisma pickeringii var. pickeringii N
Eupatorium resinosum Y
Xyris scabrifolia N
Lilium iridollae N
Astragalus michauxii N
Campylopus carolinae N
Solidago verna Y
Dionaea muscipula N
Parihenium radfordii N
Kalmia cuneata N
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina 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 et
seq.).
NBP records indicate that three state-protected species have been documented within the vicinity of
the study corridor, the three-awned meadow beauty (Rhexia aristosa), river frog (Rana heckscheri),
and pinewoods darter (Etheostoma mariae). No other state-listed species have been documented
within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the study corridor.
The state-Threatened (and FSC) awned meadow beauty has been documented at a site approximately
3.4 kilometers (2.1 mi) northeast of the study corridor. This species is typically found in savannas,
low pine woodlands, and ditches (Radford et al. 1968). No suitable habitat for this species is found
within the study corridor.
The state-Special Concern river frog has been documented within the study corridor. This species
is typically found in bottomland forests and swamp forests, and breeds in ponds near rivers and
streams (Martof et al. 1980). This project may temporarily displace this species from the study
corridor; however, the proposed bridge replacement is not expected to have adverse long-term effects
on this species.
17
The state-Special Concern pinewoods darter has been documented from a site within 3.2 kilometers
(2.0 mi) downstream from the study corridor. This species is typically found associated with
submerged aquatic vegetation in areas with a sandy or gravelly substrate. This fish may be locally
common in suitable habitat (Rohde et al. 1994). This project may temporarily displace this species
from the study corridor; however, the proposed bridge replacement is not expected to have adverse
long-term effects on this species.
Impacts to these species will be avoided/minimized to the greatest extent possible and notification to
the NHP will be given prior to construction.
VIII. CULILMAL RESOURCES
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 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that for federally
funded, licensed, or permitted projects, having an effect in properties listed on or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an
opportunity to comment.
In a concurrence form dated May 9, 1996 the Federal Highway Administration, NCDOT, and the
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred that there are no properties,
including Bridge No. 16, in the area of potential effect (APE) listed in or eligible for the National
Register (see Appendix for Concurrence Form).
In their April 22, 1996 letter, the SHPO stated that there are no known archaeological sites in the
proposed project area and it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may be eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places will be affected. They recommended no archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with this project (see Appendix for SHPO letter). Therefore,
the NCDOT has not conducted nor will conduct any archaeological work in connection with this
project.
Since there are no properties either listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
within the APE, no further compliance with Section 106 is required.
IX. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact by replacing a potentially unsafe bridge.
Inconvenience to motorists will be negligible since traffic will be maintained on site.
The project is considered a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and insignificant
environmental consequences.
18
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulations. No significant
change in existing land use is expected to result from replacement of the bridge.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. No relocatees are expected with
implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The Lumber River is designated as a Natural and Scenic River and this project is subject to Section
4(o. There are no other publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges
of national,_state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
Since the project will consist of replacing an existing bridge, the Farmland Protection Policy Act does
not apply.
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 demolition 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
2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise of Title
23, Code of Federal Regulations (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.
Robeson County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The bridge is
located in a Detailed Study Area. The Flood Boundary and Floodway Map is included in the
Appendix. This map indicates the limits of the 100-year and the 500-year floodplains as well as the
100-year floodway. Since the proposed bridge will be an in-kind replacement, it is not anticipated that
this project will have a significant adverse impact on the existing floodplain and floodway nor on the
associated flood hazard to the adjacent properties and buildings.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental effects
will result from implementation of the project.
19
M. PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
The Lumber River is designated by the State of North Carolina as a Natural and Scenic River.
N.C.G.S. 113A-44 places restrictions on projects that may have direct and adverse effects on the
designated river segment and adjacent land. Such projects include dams, reservoirs, water conduits,
and transmission lines. In addition, because of this state designation, a 4(f) statement is required
before project work can begin.
Since this project necessitates the crossing of the Lumber River, a Natural and Scenic River and
meets the criteria set forth in the Federal Register, December 23, 1986, a programmatic Section 4(0
evaluation satisfies the requirements of Section 4(f).
The following alternatives which avoid use of the 4(o property have been fully evaluated: (a) do
nothing; (b) improve the highway without using the adjacent public park; and (c) build an improved
facility on new location without using the publicly owned public park. These alternatives were not
found to be feasible and prudent.
All possible planning to minimize harm to the Lumber River has been incorporated into this project.
The officials having jurisdiction over the Section 4(f) property have agreed, in writing, with the
assessment of impacts resulting from the use of the Section 4(f) property and with the mitigation
measures to be provided (see Appendix).
Mitigation measures include the following:
a) Before construction begins, the Division Engineer will insure that "Bridge Construction
Ahead" signs are placed at the boat access area off NC 71 on the upstream and downstream
sides of the bridge.
b) The Lumber River channel will be kept open to boating traffic during construction. Efforts
to maintain as wide a channel opening as possible during construction shall be made.
C) The locations of the new bridge piers shall be designed as much as possible so as not to
obstruct river traffic.
d) If pier footing(s) which are placed in the channel come within (3) three feet of the water's
surface, fins will be installed to indicate the presence of the footing(s) in order to protect
boats and the footing(s).
e) All restoration and landscaping of disturbed areas will be accomplished by incorporating only
native species.
20
f) Every effort will be made to keep an area open for boat access at the new bridge, similar to
what presently exists. The maintenance of this access area will not be the responsibility of
NCDOT.
Approval of the programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation by the Federal Highway Administrator is
included in the Appendix of this document.
21
REFERENCES
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. USFWS/OBS -79/31. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Tech.
Rpt. Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 100 pp.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1989. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient
Network (BMAN) Water Quality Review, 1983-1987. North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 193 pp.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality in
North Carolina Streams: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data Base and Long Term Changes in Water
Quality, 1983-1990. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Water Quality Section, Raleigh.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Classifications and Water Quality Standards
Assigned to the Waters of the Lumber River Basin. North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Fish, F.F. 1968. A Catalog of the Inland Fishing Waters of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Division of Inland Fisheries, Raleigh. 312 pp.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992. Endangered and Threatened Species of Southeastern
United States (The Red Book). U.S. Department of the Interior, Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994. Agency Draft Rough-leaved Loosestrife Recovery Plan.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 37 pp.
Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,
Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
Henry, V.G. 1989. Guidelines for Preparation of Biological Assessments and Evaluations for the
Red-cockaded Woodpecker. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast
Region, Atlanta, GA. 13 pp.
Kral, R. 1983. A Report on Some Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Forest-related Vascular Plants
of the South. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Technical Publication R8J-TP 2. 1305
pp-
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of
22
the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 264 pp.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the Carolinas,
Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 222
PP.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, NC
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 325 pp.
U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1967. Scotland County Soil Survey. North Carolina. Soil
Conservation Service. 70 pp.
U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1978. Soil Survey of Robeson County, North Carolina.
Soil Conservation Service. 69 pp.
U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States. Soil
Conservation Service, Miscellaneous Publication 1491.
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDT). 1984. Bridges over Navigable Waters of the United
States. United States Coast Guard, Washington, DC. 216 pp.
Webster, W.D., Parnell, J.F. and Biggs, W.C., Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and
Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp.
23
»
1221
a 14; 1413
1 .9
Scotch Grorr
_ 1421 u

UP ?J
i ti

_.
O
J L 1
v
?
33
fry NA
?
1!1!
a 11Z
?
'?'?.
C 1
?
1421 7 L7?I :l N v![
01 j?.
b.
> 1211 ¢ LA
229 ; t

s 1W
1421
ror.ep
1412
M

111 ?? 111P
(? g -GATH LINE g
INSET 05
c c fps • ? ?'?, ?'.
-

J 2
0
t10 w 1 j b .
[A 4

? b
?i1`` L d
URINlURG 7 S • .1 ?'• y?
o`r c'?%6? .1.7 :.: •• fA? a :v ILl ?? .
s tr 2d J ?t^
7 lc 1.
• ll . ?
?
(,, h. .:.
: ? ? y 1421
?K 3r I ?
:
. .J A
40
Ido9 1,.1. s ?
I' f•' : v
i

s
'? J
30t . A
m
Uu 'f 4 Y c"
7 P `+
b J
Ills 1147 v • p ,?, 'I 4
McArthur

1
.
1111 a
I ?

C
7
4' ,
Tb
"r
`,?
?

s
1
13 e21
r
t31S
y.
l? ti:L
J 1111 P '
.N p?
i^J
G
'?(?]
v?• /•i \
or
t
? 1? ?Ohl1t ?
o 1 ? $ ?.
OND ti OoA
oa
M 9
/
?,
1121 V y

r ? d
, O
'e•

05
<
?
?
1
LIT 1LL2 o •J t4, i. p
Cam : F P

• 0 I .0 .0 3.0 k-
Source: County Road Maps
J A ~ .?
u
,
NCDOT, 1990

Site Location Map Figure: 1
e # 16
Brid
g
NC71 Over Lumber River Project:
Robeson/Scotland
Counties, NC

B-3392 Date: AUG 1996
a
I9t'
low:,
r ` r ?,wtr.. ,r
n J ar 3? ? ? •A
1
?t
1 ?, t "E 4•
1 v v t?

Cz7
b
dl
G
N

z -i
a

_•, d a

y„
y ? •:
IV, '
r

BRIDGE NO. 16
SCOTLANMROBESON
COUNTIES
B-3392
LOOKING NORTH
i

SIDE VIEW I
FIGURE 3
i
"K
C.0
Q V)
!?
zQ
o

O
ME =
N

LAj
C.3 Lid

Q `.,

d

°
r=
zc?Q
W
m

o

Z

= L AJ

Z ?D ?.-? W

Q Q H :E

z
o
?'
0
u
U °
o

JO oc

H
Z

C)
?? ?/
O M

W
O ?

c
2

a
J ?4 ry.
L
FY
Q

Lr) W

cr
d
O O
o
J /
QQU
z J
z Z Z
?
Z 8
Z
Z --
LIM LL ',
f-. 0-4 Q
G.. V U
5:5? ?\
O W 0
00
Q1 V

v
m to
O
O act
D ~ Q

Z l n
~

M
V
W

= a,

C

4.
LA-
W

m
cr-
W

.?
LL V
C
6J
6!
W
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITH MINOR INVOLVENIENT
WITH PUBLIC PARKS, RECREATION LANDS, AND WILDLIFE AND
WATERFOWL REFUGES
F. A. Project BRSTP-71(1)
State Project 8.1462401
T. I. P. No. B-3392
Description: Bridge No. 16 along NC 71 over the Lumber River, Robeson County. See
Description, Page 6.
Yes No
1. Is the proposed project designed to
improve the operational characteristics,
safety, and/or physical condition of
existing highway facilities on X D
essentially the same location?
2. Is the project on new location? ? X
3. Is the Section 4(f) land a publicly
owned public park, recreation land. or
wildlife and waterfowl refuge located X F
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? ? X
(See chart below)
Total size of section 4(f) site Maxivnum to beac uired_
less than 10 acres ............ 10 percent of site
10 acres-100 acres ............ 1 acre
greater than 100 acres ............ 1 percent of site
Yes No
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 17
_X
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 X ?
4(f) lands?
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 ? X
(e.g., former Federal surplus property)?
8. If the project involves lands described
in Item 7 above, does the appropriate
Federal Agency object to the land ? X
conversion or transfer?
9. Does the project require preparation of
an EIS? 7 X
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE
FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT
Yes No
The following alternatives were evaluated and
found not to be feasible and prudent: X ?
1. Do-nothing.
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
(a) correct capacity deficiencies? ? X
or (b) correct existing safety hazards? ? X
or (c) correct deteriorated conditions? ? X
and (d) create costs, unusual problems, or `? ?
impacts of extraordinary measure?
2. Improvement of the highway without using ?
the adjacent public park, recreational X
land, or wildlife waterfowl refuge.
(a) Have minor alignment shifts,
changes in standards, use of
retaining walls, etc., or traffic X
management measures been evaluated?
(b) The items in 2(a) would result in
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) substantial adverse community impact
or (ii) substantial increased costs
or (iii) unique engineering, transportation.
maintenance, or safety problems
or (iv substantial social, environmental,
or economic impacts
or (v) a project which does not meet the need
an (ii impacts, costs, or problems which are
extraordinary magnitude
Yes No
3. Build an improved facility on. new
location without using the public park.
recreational land. or wildlife and
waterfowl rehAge.iThis, would_he a _X ?
localized "run around
(a) An alternate on new location would
result in: (circle, as appropriate)
(i) project which does not solve
the existing problems
or (ii) ubstantial social,
environmental, or economic
impacts
or (iii) a substantial increase in
project cost or engineering
difficulties
and (iv) such impacts, costs, or
difficulties of truh, unusual
or unique or extraordinary
magnitude
yIINIIy1IZATION OF HARM
Yes No
1. The project includes all possible ?
planning to minimize harm. 1
2. Measures to minimize harm include the
following:
(circle those which are appropriate)
a. Replacement of lands used with lands
of reasonably equivalent usefulness
and location and of at least
comparable value.
b. Replacement of facilities impacted
by the project including sidewalks,
paths, benches, lights, trees, and
other facilities.
O 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.
Qe Payment of the fair market value of
the land and improvements taken or
improvements to the remaining
Section 4(f) site equal to the fair
market value of the land and
improvements taken.
O Additional or alternative mitigation
measures as determined necessary_
based on consultation with the
officials having jurisdiction over
the parkland, recreation area. or
wildlife or waterfowl refuge.
3. A discussion of specific mitigation measures is provided as follows:
a. Before construction begins, the Division Engineer will insure that -`Bridge
Construction Ahead" signs are placed at the boat access area off NC 71 on the
upstream and downstream sides of the bridge.
b. The Lumber River channel will be kept open to boating traffic during construction.
Efforts to maintain as wide a channel opening as possible during construction shall be
made.
c. The locations of the new bridge piers shall be designed as much as possible so as not
to obstruct river traffic.
d. If pier footing(s) which are placed in the channel come to within three (3) feet of the
water's surface, fins will be installed to indicate the presence of the footing(s) in
order to protect boats and the footing(s).
e. All restoration and landscaping of disturbed areas will be accomplished by
incorporating only native species.
f. Every effort will be made to keep a area open for boat access at the new bridge,
similar to what presently exists. The maintenance of this access area will not be the
responsibility of NCDOT.
Note: Any response in a boa requires additional information prior to approval. Consult
Nationwide 4(f) evaluation.
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach Correspondence):
a. Officials having jurisdiction over
the Section 4(f) Land
Local/State/Federal Agencies
US Coast Guard
4. q.
(for bridges requiring bridge permits)
d. DOI, if Section 6(f) lands are
involved
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL,
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic 4(f) evaluation approved on
December 23, 1986.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are clearly applicable to
this project. There are no feasible or prudent alternatives which avoid use of the Section
4(f) land.
The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm, and there are assurances that
the measures to minimize harm will be incorporated in the project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed.
Approved:
ate 6 Manager, Planning & En onm al Branch
NCDOT
1Z?6
Date Divis' Administrator, FHW A
Felt
NC 71 is classified as a rural major collector in the Statewide Functional Classification System.
The proposed project is located on NC 71 at the Robeson/Scotland County line, approximately 4
kilometers (2.5 mi) north of the town of Maxton. Land use around the study corridor is a mix of
agricultural and urban, with large tracts of natural vegetation occurring adjacent to the Lumber
River.
Near the bridge, NC 71 has a 6.7 meter (22 ft) pavement width with 1.8 meter (6 ft) shoulders.
An 80 meter (262 ft) long right-turn lane into the Campbell Soup facility is located north of the
existing bridge. The roadway approaches slope up toward the bridge. The horizontal alignment is
tangent on the bridge with a 430 meter radius (4 degree) curve approximately 210 meters (690 ft)
from the bridge to the south. The north approach is tangent. The roadway is situated
approximately 4.9 meters (16 ft) above the creek bed.
The traffic volumes were 7600 vehicles per day (vpd) for 1995 and projected to be 17,000 vpd for
the design year 2025. The volumes include 8% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 2% dual-
tired vehicles (DT). The posted speed limit is 88 kilometers per hour (55 mph) and signed down
to 72.4 kilometers per hour (45 mph) north of the bridge.
The existing bridge was built in 1957 (Figure 3). The superstructure consists of ten timber joist
spans. Bridge deck construction is a cast in place concrete floor deck with an asphalt wearing
surface. The substructure consists of creosote timber pile end bents and interior bents with
reinforced concrete caps.
The overall length of the bridge is 52.7 meters (173 ft). Clear roadway width is 8.5 meters (28
ft). The posted weight limit is 26,308.8 kilograms (29 tons) for single vehicles and legal gross
weight limit for tractor-trailer trucks.
Bridge No. 16 has a sufficiency rating of 23.0, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
Nine accidents were reported in the vicinity of the bridge during the period from April 1, 1992 to
March 31, 1995. The total accident rate for this period was 289.39 accidents per 100 million
vehicle kilometers (MVK). The total accident rate for two-lane, undivided rural North Carolina
routes for the period from 1992 through 1994 was 124.74 accidents per 100 MVK. The majority
of the accidents involved rear-end collisions and vehicles running off the road. There was no
single concentration of accidents; however, three of the nine accidents occurred near the
intersection of SR 1435 and SR 1461.
Telephone lines cross the stream west of the bridge, electric lines cross the stream east of the
bridge. Fiber optic lines are located southeast of the bridge and assumed to be within the existing
right-of-way. A 6-inch ductile iron force main sewer pipe is attached to the west side of the bridge
and a gaging station is attached to the east face of the bridge. Impacts to utilitiles are expected to
be medium as a result of the proposed project construction.
There are a total of six school bus crossings of this bridge daily. The Robeson County School
Transportation Director indicated that an off-site detour would cause problems in rerouting of
school bus traffic.
ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives were studied for replacing Bridge No. 16. A two-lane bridge and a three-lane
bridge were considered at each of the alternate locations. The two-lane option would provide a
137.2 meter (450 ft) right-turn lane into the Campbell Soup facility. The three-lane option would
provide a 146.3 meter (480 ft) right-turn lane into the Campbell Soup facility. This right-turn lane
would extend from the Campbell Soup facility across the new bridge. Each alternate consists of
replacing the existing bridge with a new structure having a length of 58 meters (190 ft) and a
width of either 9.2 meters (30 ft) for the two-lane structure or 12.4 meters (40 ft) for the three-
lane structure. The approach roadway will consist of a 7.2 meter (24 ft) travelway for the two-
lane option or a 10.8 meter (36 ft) travelway for the three-lane option with 2.4 meter (8 ft)
shoulders, 1.2 meter (4 ft) paved. The shoulder width will be increased to 3.4 meters (11 ft)
where guardrail is warranted. Temporary, on-site detours were considered west (Temporary
Detour 1) and east (Temporary Detour 2) of the existing bridge. An off-site detour was not
considered for this site.
The alternate alignments studied are shown on Figure 2 and are as follow:
Alternate A - 2-lane (Recommendedl: involves replacing the bridge approximately 12 meters (40
ft) west of the existing alignment. The existing structure would be used for maintenance of traffic
during construction. The roadway grade of the new bridge would be approximately the same
elevation as the existing bridge grade. The design speed for this alternate is 100 kilometers per
hour (60 mph). The total length of this alternate, including the approaches, is 820 meters (2690
ft).
Alternate B - 2-lane with on-site detour: involves replacing the bridge at its existing location.
Traffic would be maintained with a temporary, on-site detour. The roadway grade of the new
bridge would be approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge grade. The design speed
for this alternate is 100 kilometers per hour (60 mph). A right-turn lane extending from the north
end of the bridge into the Campbell Soup facility would be provided. The total length of this
alternate, including the approaches, is 366 meters (1200 ft).
Alternate A - 3-lane: involves replacing the bridge approximately 12 meters (40 ft) west of the
existing alignment. The new bridge would require staged construction for the three-lane option.
The existing structure would be used for maintenance of traffic during construction. The roadway
grade of the new bridge would be approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge grade.
The design speed for this alternate is 100 kilometers per hour (60 mph).The total length of this
7
alternate, including the approaches, is 820 meters (2690 ft).
Alternate B - 3-lane with on-site detou : involves replacing the bridge at its existing location.
Traffic would be maintained with a temporary, on-site detour. The roadway grade of the new
bridge would be approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge grade. The design speed
for this alternate is 100 kilometers per hour (60 mph). A right-turn lane extending from the north
end of the bridge into the Campbell Soup facility would be provided. The total length of this
alternate, including the approaches, is 366 meters (1200 ft).
The No-Build or "do-nothing" alternative was also considered but would eventually necessitate
closure of the bridge. This is not desirable due to the traffic service provided by NC 71.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that rehabilitation
of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
The estimated costs of the alternatives studied. based on current prices. are as follow:
Alternate A
2-lane
(Recommended) Alternate' B
2-lane with
on-site detour Alternate B
2-lane with
off-site detour
Structure Removal $32,500.00 $32,500.00 $32,500.00
Structure $374,500.00 $374,500.00 $374,500.00
Roadway Approaches $522,305.00 $197,707.50 $197,707.50
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $321,195.00 $220,792.50 $220,792.50
Engineering and Contingencies $220,000.00 $145,000.00 $145,000.00
Right-of-Way / Const. Easemt./ Util. $55,000.00 $48,000.00 $48,000.00
Additional Right-turn Lane $30,000.00 $40,000.00 * $40,000.00 *
SUBTOTAL $1,555,500.00 $1,058,500.00 $1,058,500.00
Temporary On-Site Detour NA $442,000.00 NA
TOTAL $1,555,500.00 $1,500,500.00 $1,058,500.00
Alternate A
3-lane Alternate B
3-lane with
on-site detour Alternate B'
3-lane with
off-site detour
Structure Removal $32,500.00 $32,500.00 $32,500.00
Structure $504,000.00 $504,000.00 $504,000.00
Roadway Approaches $628,320.00 $347,360.00 $347,360.00
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $322,000.00 $275,000.00 $275,000.00
Engineering and Contingencies $223,180.00 $174,140.00 $174,140.00
Right-of-Way / Const. Easement / Util. $55,000.00 $58,000.00* $58,000.00*
SUBTOTAL $1,765,000.00 $1,391,000.00 $1,391,000.00
Temporary On-Site Detour NA $442,000.00 NA
TOTAL $1,765,000.00 $1,833,000.00 $1,391,000.00
* NOTE: The additional right-of-way required is included and assumed to cost $10,000.
Bridge No. 16 will be replaced 12 meters (40 ft) west of the existing alignment with a two-lane
bridge (Alternate A). The new structure will have a clear roadway width of 9.2 meters (30 ft) and
a length of 58 meters (190 ft). A 137.2 meter (450 ft) right-turn lane will be provided into the
Campbell Soup facility. The roadway grade of the new bridge will be approximately the same
elevation as the existing bridge grade. Traffic will be maintained on the existing structure during
construction. SR 1435 will be realigned to tie into NC 71 and SR 1461 will be realigned to tie
into SR 1435. The total length of this alternate, including the approaches, is 820 meters (2690 ft).
Although it is less costly ($55,000) to replace the bridge in its existing location and maintain
traffic with a temporary, on-site detour (Alternate B), it is more desirable to replace the bridge
west of the existing location for safer maintenance of traffic, especially truck traffic, in the
immediate vicinity. Alternate A also provides a better alignment at the intersection of SR 1435
and SR 1461 where three of the nine accidents occurred in the three-year period from 1992 to
1995.
It was determined that the additional cost of providing a three-lane structure was not justified
since a 137.2 meter (450 ft) right-turn lane can be provided with the two-lane option. The existing
right-turn lane is approximately 80 meters (262 ft) long. The 137.2 meter (450 ft) right-turn lane
will provide storage for approximately five or six tractor-trailer trucks. The three-lane option
would provide storage for seven or eight tractor-trailer trucks and cost an additional $209,500
(based on the new location alignment).
10
a of North Carolina wiz
e artment of Environment,
Ith and Natural Resources F:-W;WJ O'v A4
vision of Parks & Recreation jLA
Jame
s B. Hunt, Jr„ Governor ?
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
p E H N R
Dr. Philip K. McKnelly, Director
August 23, 1996 G v
o
MEMORANDUM
NO; 2 8 1996
TO: H. Franklin Vick, Manager
Planning and Environmental Br
arch Z?
?n FROM: . Marshall Ellisv"W.Planning and Natural Resources Section
SUBJECT: Replacement of bridge #16 over the Lumber River at NC Highway 71, Robeson
and Scotland counties. Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-71(1). NCDOT TIP No.
B-3392. State Project #8.1462401.
The Division of Parks and Recreation (DPR) has reviewed the plans and Draft Nationwide
Section 4(f) evaluation for 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 on a stretch of the Lumber River that has been designated as a Scenic River
under the Natural and Scenic Rivers Act. It is very popular with recreational boaters.
Therefore, DPR requests that particular care and attention be given to mitigation measures,
especially those dealing with erosion and sedimentation control, restoration of disturbed areas,
warning signs, and the maintenance of an open channel for boating.
2. The DPR requests that all restoration and landscaping use only native species.
3. There is a public access boat ramp already in place at this site; it is not owned or maintained
by the division. However, given the recreational use along this stretch of the river, the DPR
asks that NCDOT consider keeping an area open for boat access at the new bridge. An access
at this bridge allows local boaters to keep their trip distances manageable.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project.
cc: James Sessoms, Superintendent, Lumber River State Park
LURIBR 16
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer oooar
d d rArr o
L7y' r ,? A
N 4+ y
t'
1
?? awM1?•
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
April 22, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook ,
Deputy State His ric PI
SUBJECT: Group XI Bridge Replacement Projects
Bridge 16 on NC 71 over Lumber River,
Robeson/Scotland Counties, B-3392, ER 96-8572
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your letter of March 13, 1996, concerning the above project.
We are aware of no structures of historic or architectural importance within the general
area of the project. We recommend that an architectural historian on your staff identify
and evaluate any structures over fifty years of age within the project area, and report the
findings to us.
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 g??
Federal Aid # ??ytP - 71 (1) TIP # 1? ' 3' 12 County TZ &a4vr1 /, urn ?t,1D
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description 1ZEPl.Abfi KIDFti tJ#• 1? oN N(,,"11 NM W. 413Ea- 21VE1Z
(nwc4rF_ GaouP x t
On WlkJt 1°1`16 , representatives of the

reviewed the subject project at

All parties present agreed
? there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
? there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effects.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
A scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
there arc properties over fifty years old (list attached) within 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 arc no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
Signed:
Rcorpscn NC DOT Date
the Divisi
Representative; SHPO
inistrator, or other Federal Agency
i. iii_Lt '
State Historic Preservation Officer /
Date

if a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this fonn and the attached list will be included.
??L
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
ED F= F=1
April 15, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Phil Harris
From: Eric Galamb?2
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for Group XI 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 Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
I
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
Regulatory Branch
Action ID No. 199601562
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
April 11, 1996
50"
G ti?
cr_
? ? cn
PQ ,r
/1 J ON
Reference your letter dated March 13, 1996, requesting comments regarding
the potential environmental impacts associated with the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Group XI Bridge Replacement Project,
Bridge No. 50 on NC Highway 903 over Little Contentnea Creek, at the Pitt
County and Greene County line, near Scuffleton, North Carolina, TIP B-1204.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates excavation and/or discharge
of excavated and/or fill material into waters of the United States, including
wetlands. The Corps of Engineers must assess the impacts of such activities
on the aquatic environment before a final permit decision can be made.
Federal permit authorization of fill activities within waters of the
United States pursuant to Section 404 requires that the project be water
dependant and/or that no practicable alternatives are available. Our initial
emphasis for review of NCDOT projects focuses on anticipated impacts to waters
and/or wetlands. However, if degradation to other aspects of the natural
environment (e.g., critical habitat of endangered species) is considered to be
of greater concern, an alternative resulting in greater aquatic losses may be
chosen as preferred. In all cases, and in accordance with the 1990 Mitigation
Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
the Corps, unavoidable impacts to wetland resources must be addressed prior to
the final permit decision.
Based upon our review of the documentation you provided, much more
information is needed for us to make a determination raQardi ncr the Federal
permit requirements. Specifically, you should provide project plans which
describe the proposed work and indicate all impacts to waters of the United
States, including wetlands, associated with this project. Wetland impacts
should be described in terms of size, location, and type. This includes
temporary and permanent approach fills, and any borrow/waste activity that may
impact waters and/or wetlands.
Once this information becomes available, please provide it to the
Washington Regulatory Field Office for our review. As your planning process
continues, please be reminded that avoidance and minimization of impacts to
waters and wetlands should be undertaken to the maximum extent practicable.
In addition, a compensatory mitigation plan must be developed and approved
prior to the issuance of a Department of the Army permit.
-2-
Thank you for your time and cooperation. If you have any questions,
please contact Mr. Henry Wicker, Washington Regulatory Field Office,
telephone [phone], extension 25.
Sincerely,
7 r
David M. Lekson, P.W.S.
Field Office Manager
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. Thomas Welborn, Chief
Wetlands Regulatory Section - Region IV
Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Mr. Larry Hardy
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. John Hefner
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
aPP??ENTORTyF United States Department of the Interior
o`" Zm
A FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office GOT I
Post Office Box 33726
a
?4gCH 3 Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
March 27, 1996
MAR 2 b 1996
Mr. H. Franklin Vick :Z DiwISICV ui
Planning and Environmental Branch C HIGHWAYS
N.C. Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201 ONN?
Raleigh, NC 27611
Subject: Group XI Bridge Replacement Projects
Various counties, North Carolina (TIP Nos. B-1204, 2514, 2533,
2818, 2861, 2862, 2873, 2964, 3011, 3035, 3085, 3274, 3392, 3410)
Dear Mr. Vick:
This responds to your letter of March 13, 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 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 fourteen bridges in various Eastern 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 wetland impacts be avoided and minimized
to the maximum extent practicable as outii.ned 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):
1• A clearly defined purpose and need for the proposed project including a
discussion of the project's independent utility;
2. An analysis of the alternatives to the proposed project that were
considered, including 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 of the U.S., including wetlands, that
are to be 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
Corps 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 which 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 Bladen, Brunswick, Columbus,
Cumberland, Duplin, Durham, Greene, Pender, Pitt, Robeson, Scotland, Wayne, and
Wilson 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 accompanvino 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,
State, and private activities in the project and cumulative effects
area;
C. Interrelated actions are those that are part of a larger action and
depend on the larger action for their justification;
d. Cumulative impacts of future State and private activities (not
requiring Federal agency involvement, that will be considered as
part of future Section 7 consultation);
5. Summary of evaluation criteria used as a measurement of potential effects;
6. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any listed
species or associated habitat including project proposals to
reduce/eliminate adverse effects;
7. Based on evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the project is
not likely to adversely affect or may affect threatened and endangered
species.
Candidate species are those plant and animal species for which the Service has
sufficient information on their biological status and threats to their survival
to propose them as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). Although candidate species receive no statutory protection under the ESA,
Federal agencies are required to informally confer with the Service on actions
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of these species or that may destroy
or modify proposed critical habitat. Species of concern include those species
for which the Service does not have enough scientific information to support a
listing proposal or species which do not warrant listing at the present time.
Species of Concern receive no statutory protection under the ESA, but could
become candidates in the future if additional scientific information becomes
available indicating they are endangered or threatened. Formal listing places
the species under the full protection of the ESA, and necessitates a new survey
if its status in the project corridor is unknown. Therefore, it would be prudent
for the project to avoid any adverse impact to candidate species or their
habitat. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for
information on species under State protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please
continue to advise us of the progress made in the planning process, including
your official determination of the impacts of this project.
Si cQ e y yo s,
1Wails n Lan \\
?Act?ing ie Supe visor
Attachments
cc: NCDEHNR-DEM
NCWRC
NMFS
FHWA
USACE
EPA
FWS/R4/KDoak/KHD:3-26-96/919-856-4520 ext 19/wp:BMAR96.SCP
U.S,De moment Comnucder Federal GuUng
T(CY1Sp0?? Fifth Coast Guard district 431 Crawford Street /Aff l
Portsmouth. VA 2970x1.5004
Uraw stw" staff Symbol: { I OWb )
Cocot4GUard Phone: [phone]
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Korth Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
16590
20 Aug 96
This responds to your letters of June 13, 1996, requesting our
concurrence that Coast Guard Bridge Permits will not be required
for the proposed replacements of Bridge No. 256 over the
Northeast Cape Fear River, Bridge No. 1 over Sturgeon Creek, and
Bridges No. 16 and 103 over the Lumber River.
Section 107 of the Coast Guard Authorization Aet of 1982, Public
I,aw 97-322, exempts bridge projects from Coast Guard Bridge
Permits when the bridge project crosses nontidal waters which are
not used, susceptible to use in their natural condition, or
susceptible to use by reasonable improvement as a means to
transport interstate or foreign commerce. We have determined
that each of these bridge projects will cross a section of
waterway which meets these conditions. Accordingly, Coast Guard
Bridge permits will not be required for any of these bridges.
The fact that Coast Guard Bridge Permits will not be required for
these projects does not receive you of the responsibility for
compliance with the requirements of any other Federal, State or
local agency who may have jurisdiction by law over any other
aspect of the projects.
If you have any questions concerning these comments, please feel
free to contact me at [phone].
2 ? `orb xp?G c
JtiA ?
Sincerely,
ANN S. DEATON
Chief, Bridge Administration Section
By direction of the Commander
Fifth Coast Guard District