20020587 Ver 1_Complete File_20020412

dpa $fA7t'o e ? 7
fit
Q:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA SECTary
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION -
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
March 22, 2002020587
US Army Corps Of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403 f Gyd j S.c
ATTENTION: Mr. Richard Spencer
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
Subject: Replacement of Bridge No. 46 on SR 1612 over Big Shoe Heel Creek, Scotland
County, Federal Project No. BRZ-1612(2), State Project No. 8.259050 1,
T.I.P. Project No. B-3515
Please find attached the Categorical Exclusion for the referenced project. The
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 46 over Big Shoe Heel Creek near the Town of Maxton in Scotland County.
Alternate A (recommended) will replace the bridge on the existing location with a longer
five-span bridge approximately 240 feet (73.2 meters) in length. During construction,
SR 1612 would be closed and traffic will be detoured off-site using existing primary and
secondary roads. The anticipated let date for this proposed project is June 18, 2002.
The existing structure was constructed by NCDOT in 1956 and contains twelve
spans totaling 205 feet (62.5 meters) in length. The superstructure is composed of a
reinforced concrete deck on timber joists and 1-beams. The substructure is composed of
44 timber caps and piles, with concrete jackets on five of the piles and one bent having a
steel cap and pile crutch. The existing bridge will be removed in accordance with the
NCDOT Best Management Practices (BMP) for Bridge Demolition and Removal (BDR).
The timber and steel components will be removed without dropping any components into
Waters of the U.S. However, there is potential for concrete components of the bridge to
be dropped into Waters of the U.S. during construction. The resulting temporary fill
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - FAX:. [phone]. TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE. NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
I
a iN*ith demolition of the concrete deck is approximately 70 cubic yards
514 cubit tars).
The. new structure would provide a five-span bridge with a length of 240 feet
(73.2 meters). It will provide a 30-foot (9.2 meters) clear roadway width that includes
two 12-foot (3.6 meters) travel lanes with 3 feet (1.0 meters) of lateral clearance on each
side of the bridge. Roadway approaches would provide two 12-foot travel lanes with 8-
foot (2.4 meters) wide shoulders, including 2-foot (0:6 meter) of paved shoulder. The
new structure will be rat approximately the same elevation as the existing grade. A
minimum grade of 0.3 percent and a minimum cross-slope of 2 percent on the new bridge
and roadway approaches would be maintained to facilitate deck and roadway drainage.
The NCDOT considered funneling water from the deck drains to prevent discharge
directly into Big Shoe Heel Creek. However, stream water flow is slow and the stream
channel is poorly defined; the area underneath and immediately surrounding the bridge is
a swamp. Therefore, funneling water from the deck drains into the swamp waters would
not significantly improve water filtration.
The Big Shoe Heel Creek, which is a perennial stream, is the only jurisdictional
surface water resource at the project site. This stream is in the Lumber River drainage, in
subbasin 03-07-55 and the Stream Index Number is 14-34. Big Shoe Heel Creek is
situated within federal hydrologic unit 03040204. The North Carolina Division of Water
Quality (NCDWQ) has designated this stream as C-SW waters. No Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), or Water Supplies (WS-1 or
WS-II) occur within three miles of the project study area. Impacts to jurisdictional
surface water are anticipated to be less than 40 linear feet (12.2 linear meters) based
on a reduction in the number of existing bents from eleven to approximately four. There
will be no jurisdictional wetland impacts. The proposed bridge replacement is a Case 2
demolition project as described by the NCDOT BMP-BDR. A moratorium is placed on
in-stream work between April I and June 15 to protect sunfish spawning. NCDOT's
Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters (BMPs - PSW) and
Sedimentation Control guidelines will be followed during the construction stages of the
project.
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has identified five
endangered (E) species and one threatened species due to similarity of appearance
\ [T(S/A)] in Scotland County. Suitable habitat is not available within the project area for
these species. Based on the lack of suitable habitat for these species, it can be concluded
that project construction will not impact the federally protected species.
All aspects of this project are being processed by the Federal Highway
Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" (CE) in accordance with 23 CFR
771.115(b). We do not anticipate requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed
under Nationwide Permit 23 in accordance with 61 Federal Register 65874, 65916
(December 13, 1996):
We anticipate that 401 General Water Quality. Certification No. 3107 (Categorical
Exclusion, dated February 11, 1997) will apply to this project, and are providing one
•f
copy of the CE document to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review. The NCDOT will comply with
all conditions of the 401 Water Quality Certification.
If you have any questions, please contact Clay Willis at [phone], extension 334.
Sincerely,
???rG%LGj/,,
Wil iam D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
w/Attachments
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, DWQ
Mr. Tim Rountree, Structure Design
w/o Attachments
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Highway Design Engineer
Ms. Missy Dickens, P.E., Project Engineer
Mr. David Henderson, P.E. Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Art King, Division 8 Environmental Officer
Mr, Byron Moore, P.E., Roadside Environmental Unit
Mr. W. F. Rosser, P.E., Division 8 Engineer
Mr. Omar Sultan, Program Development
Lourinburg
' Mcxton
Airport
1 :
1434
7(
74 I ?. p
i
a? 1436 BYP
,
74
N J
O
B
To
? boa
1611 O
612
1 1611

PROJECT LOCATION
LL I
SCOC? SCALE IN MILES
1 0
FIGURE I
AREA LOCATION MAP Ramey Kemp & Assoclotes, Inc.
BRIDGE NO. 46 ON SR 11612 Tronsportotlon Consulting Engineers
OVER BIG SHOE HEEL CREEK
SCOTLAND COUNTY. NORTH CAROLINA 4928-A Windy HIN Drive Raleigh, North Corollno 27609
TIP PROJECT B-3515 19191872-5115 fox [phone]
SCOTLAND COUNTY
SR 1612
BRIDGE NO. 46 OVER BIG SHOE HEEL CREEK
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1612 (2)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2590501
T.I.P. NO. B-3515
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
1961 ty, (?- t:?'/ zt'
DAT Wi ' m D. Gilmore, P.E., Man r
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
DATE
Nicholas L. Graf, P.E., Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
i
SCOTLAND COUNTY
SR 1612
BRIDGE NO. 46 OVER BIG SHOE HEEL CREEK
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1612 (2)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2590501
T.I.P. NO. B-3515
020587
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
APRIL 2001
Document Prepared by Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc.
-Zk,) CAI.
Montell W. Irvin, P.E., Project anager
Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc.
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
Mary Alice ickens, P.E., Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1?? 2 i?Zl
Tho s R. Kendig, AICP, Unit He
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
® - -0
Date
? t
BRIDGE, REPLACEMENT
SR 1612
BRIDGE NO. 46 OVER BIG SHOE HEEL CREEK
TOWN OF MAXTON, SCOTLAND COUNTY, NC
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1612 (2)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2590501
T.I.P. NO. B-3515
SPECIAL- PROJECT COMMITMENTS
MCDOT Division 8 and Structure Design
1.) Bridge demolition and removal will be completed following the latest NCDOT Best Management
Practices for Bridge- Demolition and Removal guidelines. The reinforced concrete deck, reinforced
concrete bridge rails, timber caps, and any timber piles with concrete jackets will be removed without
dropping them into the water. Timber piles will. be removed by pulling or will be cut-off level with the
surface of the streambed. Removal of the timber piles will likely raise sediment concerns and therefore
a°turbidity curtain (silt screen) is recommended:
NCDOT Division 8
1.) NCDOT will coordinate with Laurinburg & 'Southern Company Railroad to provide the project schedule
so that Laurinburg & Southern Company Railroad can provide Stop and Flag operation during the life
of the off-site detour at the at-grade crossing of the. Laurinburg & Southern Company Railroad and
SR 1610 (South Rocky Ford Road).
NCDOT Division 8 and Roadway Design
1.) The NCDOT will :observe a moratorium on in-water work `between April' 1 and June 15 to protect'
sunfish spawning, as requested by the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission.
Categorical Exclusion
April 2001
1
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
SR 1612
BRIDGE NO. 46 OVER BIG SHOE HEEL CREEK
TOWN OF MAXTON, SCOTLAND COUNTY, NC
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1612 (2)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2590501
TIP NO. B-3515
Bridge No. 46, located on SR 1612 over Big Shoe Heel Creek, in the Town of Maxton in Scotland County,
is listed in the 2000-2006 North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) as B-3515 and is included in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program
(BRZ-1612 (2)). Refer to Figure 1 for location of the project.
Based on the assessment of the existing human and natural environment, it is concluded no substantial
impacts will result from the replacement of Bridge No. 46. Therefore, this project is being processed as a
Federal Categorical Exclusion.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 46 will be replaced in-place with a five-span cored slab bridge approximately 240 ft (73.2 m) in
length. The proposed structure will have a 30 ft (9.2 m) clear roadway width that will include two 12 ft
(3.6 m) travel lanes with 3 ft (1.0 m) of lateral clearance on each side of the bridge and will have deck
drains over the water. The roadway approaches will provide two 12 ft (3.6 m) travel lanes with 8 ft (2.4 m)
shoulders, 2 ft (0.6 m) of which will be paved. The roadway approach and bridge grades will approximately
match existing bridge and roadway elevations. A minimum grade of 0.3% and minimum cross-slope of
2.0% on the proposed structure and roadway approaches will be maintained to facilitate deck and roadway
drainage. The design speed of Alternate A will be 60 mph (100 km/h). It is expected that all work outside
of the existing right-of-way will be completed under a construction easement agreement.
Traffic will be maintained off-site via SR 1611 and US 74 Business (see Figure 5) for approximately 12 to
18 months while the bridge and roadway work is being completed.
The estimated cost of this project, based on current prices, is $1,179,125. This amount includes $29,125
for right-of-way acquisition and $1,150,000 for construction. The estimated cost of the project, as shown in
the 2000-2006 TIP, is $949,000 ($878,000 for construction and $71,000 for right-of-way).
PURPOSE AND NEED
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate Bridge No. 46 has a sufficiency rating of 18.3 out of a possible
100. The bridge is considered structurally deficient. The replacement of this inadequate structure will
result in safer and more efficient traffic operations.
2
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Bridge No. 46 over Big Shoe Heel Creek is located on SR 1612 approximately 0.7 mile (1.1 km) west of
the junction of SR 1611. Refer to Figure 1 for the project location and Figures 2 and 3 for photos of the
existing project area.
BRIDGE INFORMATION
According to the 1998 NCDOT Bridge Inspection Report, Bridge No. 46, which was constructed in 1956,
has a sufficiency rating of 18.3 out of a possible 100 and is considered structurally deficient. The bridge is
currently posted for a weight limit of 20 tons (18,182 kg) for single vehicles and 30 tons (27,273 kg) for
truck-tractor semi-trailers (TTST).
The overall length of the twelve-span structure is 205 ft (62.5 m). It has a clear roadway width of 24 ft
(7.2 m) that includes two 10 ft (3.0 m) travel lanes with approximately 2 ft (0.6 m) of lateral clearance on
each side of the bridge. The superstructure consists of a reinforced concrete deck on timber joists and
I-Beams. The substructure is made of timber caps and piles, with the exception of bent no. 7, which has a
steel cap and pile crutch. According to the Structure Data File (dated March 6, 2000), there are concrete
jackets on five of the bridge's forty-four piles.
There is no evidence of scour or debris accumulation at the bridge. According to local NCDOT
maintenance staff and the NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit, there are no records of the bridge ever being
overtopped. The 1999 high water mark during Hurricane Floyd was below the low beam of the bridge.
ROADWAY INFORMATION
SR 1612 is classified as a rural minor collector in the Statewide Functional Classification System. The
2000 average daily traffic volume on SR 1612 over Bridge No. 46 is estimated to be 2,250 vehicles per day
(vpd), which includes 1 percent TTST vehicles and 2 percent dual-tired vehicles. The 2025 design year
average daily traffic volume over the bridge is expected to be 5,000 vpd.
The two-lane facility measures approximately 21 ft (6.4 m) in width and has 4 ft (1.2 m) grassed shoulders
on each side of the roadway. The horizontal alignment of SR 1612 is straight and the vertical alignment is
flat within the project area. The posted speed limit on SR 1612 west of, and over, Bridge No. 46 is
55 miles per hour (mph) (90 km/h); however, the speed limit is reduced to 45 mph (70 km/h) approximately
700 ft (213 m) east of the bridge. Existing right-of-way is approximately 60 ft (18.3 m) in width.
SR 1612 is not . part of a designated bicycle route nor is it listed in the Transportation Improvement
Program as needing incidental bicycle accommodations.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Land immediately adjacent to the bridge is heavily wooded and undeveloped. Land in the project area is a
mixture of undeveloped land, rural residential, and agricultural properties. The entrance to the Scotland
County Solid Waste Department Sanitary Landfill is located approximately 0.6 mile (0.96 km) west of the
bridge on SR 1611. The landfill property is located adjacent to SR 1612 and SR 1611.
3
According to Scotland County school officials, three school buses cross Bridge No. 46 twice per day, for a
total of six trips. Closure of SR 1612 during construction is not expected to cause any major problems
according to school officials.
Crash records maintained by the NCDOT indicate there have been no crashes reported on SR 1612 within
the project area.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A "Do-Nothing" alternate was considered for this project; however, this alternative would eventually
necessitate closure of the bridge due to its poor condition. The "Do-Nothing" alternate was eliminated from
further consideration.
"Rehabilitation" of the existing bridge was considered as a study alternate. Due to the deteriorated
condition of the bridge, the "Rehabilitation" alternate was eliminated from further consideration.
Two construction alternatives were studied (see Figure 4). Each alternative consists of replacing Bridge
No. 46 in-place, the difference being that Alternate A would utilize an off-site detour to route traffic away
from the project during construction while Alternate B would provide a temporary on-site detour. Both
alternatives would provide a new five-span bridge 240 ft (73.2 m) in length. The new structure would
provide a 30 ft (9.2 m) clear roadway width that would include two 12 ft (3.6 m) travel lanes with 3 ft (1.0 m)
of lateral clearance on each side of the bridge and have deck drains over the water. The roadway
approaches would provide two 12 ft (3.6 m) travel lanes with 8 ft (2.4 m) shoulders, 2 ft (0.6 m) of which
would be paved. The roadway approach and bridge grades would approximately match existing bridge
and roadway elevations. A minimum grade of 0.3% and minimum cross-slope of 2.0% on the proposed
structure and roadway approaches would be maintained to facilitate deck and roadway drainage.
Alternate A (Recommended)
This alternate consists of replacing the bridge in-place with an off-site detour. SR 1612 would be closed
for approximately 12 to 18 months while the bridge and roadway work is being completed. Traffic would be
detoured via SR 1611 and US 74 Business (see Figure 5).
Off-Site Detour
Two off-site detour routes were evaluated for this alternate. One would utilize SR 1108 and SR 1611 over
the Maxton Pond dam and the other would utilize SR 1611, SR 1610, and US 74 Business.
Although it would be 1.7 miles (2.7 km) shorter in length, the detour route over the Maxton Pond dam was
eliminated from further study because the majority of the route is unpaved and in poor condition and the
dam is only wide enough for one travel lane. The dam appears to be in very poor condition.
The preferred detour would route traffic along SR 1611, SR 1610, and US 74 Business. The maximum
detour length is estimated to be 6.8 miles (11.0 km); however, based on development in the area, the most
likely detour route would be less than 3.0 miles (4.8 km). The entire route is paved and in good condition;
however, it will require traffic to cross over a railroad spur-track owned by Laurinburg & Southern Company
Railroad track at an at-grade intersection. This spur-track is used by the Pilkington Building Products
4
industrial facility, and according to the NCDOT Rail Division one train per day enters and exits the facility,
resulting in two crossings of SR 1610 (S. Rocky Ford Road). The current crossing has no flashing lights or
gates. Refer to Figure 5 for illustration of the recommended temporary off-site detour route.
Alternate B
Alternate B involves replacing the bridge in-place with a temporary on-site detour adjacent to the south
(downstream) side of the existing bridge.
The temporary structure would be approximately 200 ft (61 m) in length and will have a clear roadway
width of 24 ft (7.2 m), which would include two 10 ft (3.0 m) travel lanes. The detour roadway approaches
would provide two 10 ft (3.0 m) travel lanes and 6 ft (1.8 m) shoulders on each side. The detour would
require horizontal reverse curves at each end of the project to tie into the existing roadway. The grade of
the detour structure and roadway approaches would likely be lowered to minimize impacts to wetlands.
Refer to Figure 4 for illustration of Alternates A and B.
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs of each alternate, based on current dollars, are shown below:
TABLE 1
ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
Alternate A
with Off-Site Detour Alternate B
with On-Site Detour
Structure $483,750 $690,1501
Roadway Approaches $149,650 $346,900
Structure Removal $47,000 $47,000
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $309,600 $490,950
Engineering and Contingencies $160,000 $250,000
Total Construction Cost $1,150,000 $1,825,000
Right-of-Way/Easement and Utilities $29,125 $44,250
Total Project Cost $1,179,125 $1,869,250
I Includes temporary structure and its removal.
The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 2000-2006 TIP, is $949,000 ($878,000 for construction
and $71,000 for right-of-way).
5
V. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
The preferred alternate (Alternate A) consists of replacing the bridge in-place with an off-site detour.
SR 1612 would be closed for approximately 12 to 18 months while the bridge and roadway work is being
completed. Traffic would be detoured via SR 1611 and US 74 Business.
This recommended alternate will provide a new multi-span bridge approximately 240 ft (73.2 m) in length
with a 30 ft (9.2 m) clear roadway width that will include two 12 ft (3.6 m) travel lanes with 3 ft (1.0 m) of
lateral clearance on each side of the bridge. The roadway approaches will provide two 12 ft (3.6 m) travel
lanes with 8 ft (2.4 m) shoulders, 2 ft (0.6 m) of which will be paved. The roadway approach and bridge
grades will approximately match existing bridge and roadway elevations. A minimum grade of 0.3% and
minimum cross-slope of 2.0% on the proposed structure and roadway approaches will be maintained to
facilitate deck and roadway drainage. The design speed of Alternate A will be 60 mph (100 km/h).
It is expected that all work outside of the existing right-of-way will be completed under a construction
easement agreement.
Alternate A is the recommended alternate because it has a lower construction cost and will impact less
wetlands than Alternate B. Figure 6 shows the proposed roadway and structure typical sections and
design criteria.
The Division Engineer concurs with the preferred alternative and recommended off-site detour.
VI. NATURAL RESOURCES
Natural resources within the project study area were evaluated to provide: 1) an assessment of existing
vegetation, wildlife, protected species, streams, wetlands, and water quality; 2) an evaluation of probable
impacts resulting from construction; and 3) a preliminary determination of permit needs.
METHODOLOGY
Materials and research data in support of this investigation were derived from a number of sources
including applicable U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle topographic mapping (Johns,
NC), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory mapping, Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) Scotland County soil survey (USDA 1967), and recent aerial photography
(scale 1:1200) furnished by NCDOT.
The project study area was walked and visually surveyed for significant features on May 31, 2000. The
preliminary study area evaluated is approximately 2000 ft (600 m) in length and 500 ft (150 m) in width,
symmetrically centered on SR 1612. Special topics evaluated in the field include potential habitat for
protected species, streams, wetlands, and water quality protection.
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
6
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 (USACE) delineation
guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were characterized according to a classification scheme
established by Cowardin et al. (1979). Habitat 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, Rohde et al. 1994, Palmer and Braswell 1995). Water quality information for area streams and
tributaries was derived from available sources (DEM 1989, DEM 1993, DENR 1999). Quantitative
sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
The most current FWS listing of federal protected species with ranges which extend into Scotland County
was obtained prior to initiation of the field investigation. In addition, NHP records documenting presence of
federal or state listed species were consulted before commencing the field investigation (review date May
30, 2000).
PHYSIOGRAPHY AND SOILS
The project study area is located in the Sandhills region of the Upper Coastal Plain physiographic province.
The topography in the project vicinity is generally characterized as fairly level with moderately steep breaks
along drainage ways (USDA 1967). Elevations in the project study range from 175 ft (53 m) to 165 ft
(50 m) above sea level (USGS Johns, NC quadrangle).
The project study area crosses three soil mapping units. Hydric soils are mapped Plummer sand and
loamy sand (Grossarenic Ochraquult). Soils associated with Big Shoe Heel Creek are mapped as
"Swamp" and consist of very poorly drained soils that are variable in texture. Nonhydric soils are mapped
as Wagram sand (Arenic Paleudulf) which are excessively drained.
WATER RESOURCES
WATERS IMPACTED
The project study area is located within sub-basin 030755 of the Lumber River Basin (DEM 1991) and is
part of USGS hydrologic unit 03040204 (USGS 1974).. Big Shoe Heel Creek originates north of US 401 in
Scotland County and flows south to its confluence with the Little Pee Dee River in South Carolina. This
stream has been assigned Stream Index Number (SIN) 14-34 by the N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
from its source to the North Carolina/South Carolina state line.
STREAM CHARACTERISTICS
Big Shoe Heel Creek is a braided stream system. The main channel is 50 ft (15 m) wide and an average
of 5 ft (1.5 m) deep. Big Shoe Heel Creek is a perennial stream with moderate flow over substrate
consisting of sand and silt. A geomorphic characterization of the stream section within the project study
area indicates Big Shoe Heel Creek is a "DA" channel (Rosgen 1996). This designation indicates a stream
which occurs on broad gentle valleys and deltas. "DA" channels have moderate sinuosity and are
associated with wetland containing stable islands (Rosgen 1996).
7
BEST USAGE CLASSIFICATIONS AND WATER QUALITY
A Best Usage Classification is 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. Big Shoe Heel Creek,
from its source to the North Carolina/South Carolina State Line, has been assigned a best usage
classification of.C-SW (DEM 1993, DENR 1999). The C designation indicates waters that support aquatic
life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Secondary recreation
is any activity involving human body contact with water on an infrequent of incidental basis. The SW
designation is used for swamp waters characterized by low velocities, low pH, low dissolved oxygen levels,
and high organic content. Point source discharges of treated wastewater are permitted in these waters,
pursuant to Rules .0104 and .0211 of 15A NCAC 213; however, local programs to control nonpoint source
and stormwater discharge of pollution are required.
No Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), WS I, or WS-II Waters occur within
3 miles (4.8 km) upstream or downstream of the project study area. Signs posted at Big Shoe Heel Creek
state that game fish contain high levels of mercury and people are warned to limit their intake. Big Shoe
Heel Creek is not designated as a North Carolina Natural and Scenic River, nor as a national Wild and
Scenic River.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulates permits for projects involving the
construction, alteration, and/or operation of any sewer system, treatment works or disposal system and
certain stormwater runoff which would result in a discharge into surface waters (DPA 1991). There is one
upstream and one downstream permitted point source discharger located on Big Shoe Heel Creek.
Approximately 10 miles (16 km) upstream of SR 1612, Wagram Central Engineering (NPDES N00029769)
has a permitted discharge of 0.018 MGD (68.2 kilo-liters per day) (DEM 1999). Maxton WWTP (NPDES
N00027120) is approximately 2.0 miles (3.2 km) downstream of SR 1612. This plant has permitted
discharge of 0.6 MGD (2,272 kilo-liters per day) (DEM 1999).
A non point source of pollution is the Scotland County Solid Waste Landfill directly up slope of the Big
Shoe Heel Creek project study area. The wetlands associated with Big Shoe Heel Creek provide an
important filter that allows sediments and pollutants from the landfill to settle out before reaching the creek.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long-term trends in water quality at
monitoring sites by sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrates (DEM 1989). This program has been
replaced by the benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring program associated with the basinwide assessment
for the Yadkin River Basin (DWQ 1997). DWQ assigns bioclassifications to streams and portions of
streams based on species richness and overall biomass, which are considered to be reflections of water
quality. In 1990 a benthic macroinvertebrate sample was taken at Bridge No 46 and received a Good-Fair
bioclassification (DEM 1993). Two additional benthic macroinvertebrate samples were taken on Big Shoe
Heel Creek. One sample was taken 2.0 miles (3.2 km) upstream at SR 1369. The site received a good
bioclassification in 1990 (DEM 1999). A sample site 9.0 miles (14.5 km) downstream at SR 1101 in
Robeson County received an excellent bioclassification rating (OEM 1999). ,
Another measure of water quality being used by the DWQ is the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
(NCIBI), which assesses biological integrity using the structure and health of the fish community. Only one
NCIBI sample was taken in the Lumber Subbasin 55 (030755). The sample was taken in Little Shoe Heel
8
Creek (2.5 miles (4.0 km) SW of Wagram) approximately 10 miles (16 km) upstream from Bridge No. 46,
and received a Fair-Good NCIBI rating (DEM 1993).
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO WATER RESOURCES
Section 402-2 of NCDOT's Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures is labeled Removal of
Existing Structure. This section outlines restrictions and Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition
and Removal (BMP-BDRs), as well as guidelines for calculating maximum potential fill in the creek
resulting from demolition. The timber and steel components and the concrete caps are slated for removal
in a manner which will avoid dropping any bridge components into Big Shoe Heel Creek. There is
potential for the remaining concrete components of the superstructure to be dropped into Big Shoe Heel
Creek during demolition and removal. The maximum temporary fill associated with the removal is
approximately 70.0 cubic yards (53.4 m3).
Short-term impacts to water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, may result from construction-
related activities. Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters (BMPs) can minimize
impacts during construction, including implementation of standard erosion and sedimentation control
measures, and avoidance of using wetlands as staging areas.
Other impacts to water quality, such as changes in water temperature as a result of increased exposure to
sunlight due to the removal of stream-side vegetation or increased shade due to the construction of the
bridges and changes in stormwater flows due to changes in the amount of impervious surface adjacent to
the stream channels, can be anticipated as a result of this project. However, due to the limited amount of
overall change in the surrounding areas, impacts are expected to be temporary in nature.
No adverse long-term impacts to water resources are expected to result from any of the alternatives being
considered. All alternatives call for spanning structures across Big Shoe Heel Creek, which will allow for
continuation of present stream flow within the existing channel, thereby protecting stream integrity.
Due to the length of the crossing, placement of piers in the water will be required; however, it should be
noted that the number of existing bents will be reduced from eleven to approximately four.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
PLANT COMMUNITIES
Three plant communities were identified within the project study area: coastal plain small stream swamp,
pine/scrub oak, and maintained/disturbed areas. These communities are described below:
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp - The coastal plain small stream swamp (Schafale and Weakley
1990) is associated with the Big Shoe Heel Creek floodplain. Smaller stream systems do not have the
well-developed community structure typically found in larger river systems. In small systems the
hummocks and slopes typically represent small areas within the more broadly defined community. Coastal
plain small stream swamp communities are inundated in the winter and in the beginning of the growing
season; as the water level drops, it allows a more developed shrub and herbaceous layer to form unlike
larger cypress/gum swamps. This community is composed of mature forest with a dominance of hardwood
9
tree species and a moderate subcanopy. The canopy is dominated by black gums (Nyssa spp.), water oak
(Quercus nigra), pond cypress (Taxodium ascendens), and bald cypress (Taxodium distichum).
Subcanopy tree species include sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana), red mulberry (Morus nbra), red maple
(Acer rubrum), and black gum. In dryer areas the herbaceous layer consists of sweet pepperbush (Clethra
alnifolia), Virginia Willow (Itea virginica), netted chain-fem (Woodwardia areolata), greenbrier (Smilax
rotundifolia), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), royal fern (Osmunda regalis), and giant cane
(Arundinada gigantea). In wetter areas the herbaceous layer is sparse and consists of arrow arum
(Peltandra virginica), buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), and Virginia chain-fern (Woodwardia
virginica).
Pine/Scrub Oak - The pine/scrub oak is the edge community that occurs on the drier hillside between the
small stream swamp and the landfill. In the absence of fire this community has formed a nearly closed
subcanopy of oaks and pines. The dominant vegetation is composed of loblolly pine (Pins taeda),
mockemut hickory (Carya tomentosa), turkey oak (Quercus laevis), black cherry (Prunus serotina), sweet
gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), horse sugar (Symplocos tinctoria), greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), poison
ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and wild grape (Vitis rotundifolia).
Maintained/Disturbed Areas - The maintained/disturbed areas includes roadsides, maintained residential
yards, fallow field, and a landfill. Roadsides are maintained by mowing and herbicides. Residential yards
contain pines intermixed with ornamental trees, shrubs and grasses. The field is dominated by various
grasses and mowed periodically. The landfill is upslope of Big Shoe Heel Creek. Sewage runoff and soil
erosion affects the water quality of the swamp system down slope.
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO PLANT COMMUNITIES
Anticipated impacts to plant communities are estimated based on the acreage of each plant community
present within the proposed construction easement shown in Figure 4. A summary of potential plant
community impacts is presented in Table 2.
TABLE 2
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO PLANT COMMUNITIES
PLANT COMMUNITY ESTIMATED IMPACTS
Alternate A Altern ate B
Impacts Impacts Temp. Detour
Im acts*
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
Maintained /Disturbed 0.50 ac (0.20 ha)
1.32 ac (0.53 ha) 0.50 ac (0.20 ha)
1.32 ac (0.53 ha) 1.43 ac (0.58 ha)
0.0 ac (0.00 ha)
Total: 1.82 ac 0.74 ha 1.82 ac 0.74 ha) 1 1.43 ac 0.58 ha
TOTAL FOR ALT: 1.82 ac (0.74 ha) 3.25 ac (1.31 ha)
* Note: Temporary detour impacts are based on the portion of the on-site detour not
included in the construction limits for the permanent structure.
Both alternatives for this project propose replacing the existing structure at its existing location, which
would reduce permanent impacts to plant communities and limit community fragmentation. Impacts as a
result of bridge replacement are generally limited to narrow strips adjacent at the existing bridge structure
10
and roadway approach segments. The Pine/Scrub Oak community is avoided by both alternatives.
Permanent community impacts for Alternate A and Alternate B are 1.82 ac (0.74 ha), which includes
0.50 ac (0.20 ha) of impacts to forested natural plant communities. Alternate B has an additional 1.43 ac
(0.58 ha) of impacts to natural forested communities associated with the temporary detour.
WILDLIFE
The project study area was visually surveyed for signs of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. Little evidence of
wildlife was observed during the field effort. The project study area is surrounded by busy highways,
residential yards, and a large landfill. Bottomland swamps along streams such as Big Shoe Heel Creek
provide cover and food that allows animals to travel between more optimal habitats. Other expected
wildlife species are those adapted to ecotones between the maintained roadsides and adjacent natural
forest.
TERRESTRIAL
Few bird species were observed within or adjacent to the project study area. Bird species commonly found
in urban/disturbed areas include American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) and mouming dove (Zenaida
macroura). Species that commonly occur in wet woodlands and surrounding pine forest include pileated
woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), barred owl (Stdx vada), belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon), and
swamp sparrow (Melospiza georgiana). Bottomland swamp communities also provide breeding habitat for
migratory birds such as northern parula (Parula americana), white-eyed vireo (Vireo griseus), and
prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria citrea).
Mammal sign (tracks, scat, etc.) observed within the project study area included only raccoon (Procyon
lotor). Species expected to be found in and around roadside and urban settings include Virginia opossum
(Didelphis virginiana), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), beaver (Castor canadensis), and eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus). Other species
that may use the Gum Swamp Creek floodplain as a travel corridor are white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus) and bobcat (Felis rufus).
No terrestrial reptiles were observed within the project study area. Species expected to-occur within the
project study area include Carolina anole (Aeolis carolinensis), five-lined skink (Eumeces sp.), eastern
garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), and eastern box turtle (Terrapene
carolina).
No terrestrial amphibians were observed within the project study area. Species expected to occur within
the project study area include southern toad (Bufo terrestris), marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum),
southern dusky salamander (Desmognathus audculatus), green tree frog (Hyla cinerea), spring pepper
(Hyla crucifer), southern cricket frog (Acris gryllus), and the southern leopard frog (Rana utricularia).
AQUATIC
Limited kick-netting, seining, dip-netting, eloctrofishing and visual observation of stream banks and channel
within the project study area were conducted in Big Shoe Heel Creek.
Fish species documented in the segment of Big Shoe Heel Creek within the project study area are redfin
pickerel (Esox americanus), yellow bullhead (Ameiurus natalis), pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus),
warmouth (Lepomis gulosus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), green sunfish (Lepomis
11
cyanellus), and eastern silvery minnow (Hybognathus regius). Other fish species expected to, be present
include chain pickerel (Esox niger), bowfin (Amia calva), eastern mudminnow (Umbra pygmaea), various
sunfish (Lepomis spp.), swamp fish (Chologaster comuta), and pinewoods darter (Etheostoma mariae)
(Menhinick 1991).
Aquatic invertebrate surveys consisted of walking all streambanks in the project study area to locate
freshwater mussel middens. Visual observation of the streambanks Big Shoe Heel Creek revealed no
evidence of freshwater mussels. Kick-net surveys and limited bottom sampling conducted within the
channel of Big Shoe Heel Creek produced few aquatic macroinvertebrates.
Benthic invertebrate organisms collected within Gum Swamp Creek were identified to Order and include
dragonflies (Odonota) and crayfish (Decapoda). Surveys conducted by DWQ in 1991 provide a more
complete list of species and their abundance at Bridge No. 46 (DENR 1999).
No aquatic reptiles were observed within the project study area. Species expected to occur include the
spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata), redbelly water snake (Nerodia e?ythrogaster), cottonmouth (Agkistrodon
piscivorous), and snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina).
Aquatic amphibian species observed within the project study area included the two-toed amphiuma
(Amphiuma means). Other species expected to occur within the project study area include eastern newt
(Notophthalmus viddescens), pickerel frog (Rana palustris), lesser siren (Siren intermedia), greater siren
(Siren /acertina), and bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana).
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO WILDLIFE
Due to the lack of, or limited, infringement on natural communities, the proposed bridge replacements will
not result in significant loss or displacement of known terrestrial animal populations. Wildlife movement
corridors are not expected to be significantly impacted by the proposed project. Potential down-stream
impacts to aquatic habitat will be avoided by bridging both systems to maintain regular flow and stream
integrity.
SPECIAL TOPICS
WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
Surface waters within the embankments of Big Shoe Heel Creek are subject to jurisdictional consideration
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as "Waters of the United States" (33 CFR 328.3). The waters in
Big Shoe Heel Creek within the project study area exhibit characteristics of riverine, lower perennial,
unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded waters which have been at least partially excavated
(R2UB2Hx).
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 project study area.
Two wetland types were identified corresponding to cypress/gum swamp and emergent wetland.
12
The cypress/gum swamp exhibits characteristics of palustrine forested, broad-leaved and needle-leaved
deciduous, seasonally flooded wetlands (PF06C). Wetland hydrology in this community is maintained
primarily by inundation from the stream channel. Hydric (low chroma) soils are saturated within 1.0 ft
(0.30 m) of the surface; drainage patterns and water marks all indicate hydrology is present throughout the
growing season.. The dominant vegetation consists of pond cypress, black gums, sweetbay, and netted
chain-fem.
The emergent wetland class exhibits characteristics of palustrine emergent, persistent and non-persistent
vegetated, temporarily flooded wetlands (PEM1/2A). Wetland hydrology in this community is maintained
primarily by inundation from the stream channel. Plants found in the emergent wetland are common cattail
(Typha lafifolia), buttonbush, blue flag iris (Iris virginica), netted chain-fem, Virginia chain-fem, soft rush
(Juncus effusus), and arrow arum. This wetland type is associated with the open water and the coastal
plain small stream swamp community.
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
Anticipated impacts to wetlands and open water areas are estimated based on the amount of each
jurisdictional area within the proposed construction easement shown in Figure 4. A summary of potential
jurisdictional impacts is presented in Table 3. Open water areas of Big Shoe Heel Creek are included in
this table.
TABLE 3
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS AND SURFACE WATERS
JURISDICTIONAL AREAS ESTIMATED IMPACTS
acres ac ha
Alternate A Alternate B
Impacts Impacts Temp. Detour
Impacts
R2UB2Hx (acres) (ha)
PEM1/2A (acres) (ha)
PF06C (acres) (ha) 0.24 ac (0.09 ha)
0.13 ac (0.05 ha)
0.50 ac (0.20 ha) 0.24 ac (0.09 ha)
0.13 ac (0.05 ha)
0.50 ac (0.20 ha) 0.20 ac (0.08 ha)
0.11 ac (0.04 ha)
1.43 ac (0.57 ha)
Total acres ha : 0.87 ac 0.35 ha 0.87 ac 0.35 ha 1.74 ac 0.70 ha
TOTALS FOR ALT: 0.87 ac 0.35 ha 2.61 ac 1.06 ha
Stream Channel Impacts (linear feet) m 80 lin. ft 24 m) 1 80 lin. ft 24 m) 1 175 lin. ft 53 m
TOTAL FOR ALT: 80 lin. ft 24 m) 1 255 lin. ft 77 m
* Note: Temporary detour impacts are based on the portion of the on-site detour not
included in the construction limits for the permanent structure.
Alternate A impacts approximately 0.24 ac (0.09 ha) of open water (R2UB2Hx) and approximately 80 linear
feet (24 m) of the main Big Shoe Heel Creek channel. Alternate B impacts approximately 0.44 ac (0.18 ha)
of open water and approximately 255 linear feet (77 m) of Big Shoe Heel Creek, most of which are
temporary impacts associated with the temporary detour. Approximately 0.01 ac (0.004 ha) of the
temporary impact to open waters will be the result of fill required for the on-site detour; however, the fill will
be removed according to NCDOT guidelines.
13
One of the two wetland types (PEM1/2A) is an emergent wetland associated with Big Shoe Heel Creek.
This wetland exhibits characteristics of a palustrine emergent, persistent and non-persistent vegetated,
temporarily flooded wetland. Alternate A and Alternate B impact 0.13 ac (0.05 ha) of this wetland within
the permanent right-of-way. The temporary detour associated with Alternate B may impact an additional
0.11 (0.04 ha) acre of this wetland. Approximately 0.02 ac (0.008 ha) of the temporary impacts to PEM1/2A
will be the result of fill required for the on-site detour; however, the fill will be removed according to NCDOT
guidelines. The remaining 0.09 ac (0.04 ha) of impacts are expected to be temporary because the bridge
span will cover the areas associated with the emergent wetland.
The other wetland type (PF06C) is associated with the cypress/gum swamp located south of SR 1612.
This area exhibits characteristics of palustrine forested, broad-leaved and needle leaved deciduous,
seasonally flooded wetlands. Alternate A and Alternate B both have permanent impacts to 0.87 ac
(0.35 ha) of this wetland. The temporary detour associated with Alternate B may impact an additional
1.74 ac (0.70 ha) of this wetland. The temporary detour will require fill in 0.35 ac (0.11 ha) of PF06C;
however, the fill will be removed according to NCDOT guidelines.
PERMITS
This project is being processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) guidelines. Nationwide Permit (NWP) #23 [33 CFR 330.5(a)(23)J has been issued by the USACE
for CEs due to expected minimal impact. DWQ has issued a General 401 Water Quality Certification for
NWP #23. However, use of this permit will require written notice to DWQ. In the event that NWP #23 will
not suffice, minor impacts attributed to bridging and associated approach improvements are expected to
qualify under General Bridge Permit 031 issued by the Wilmington USACE District. Notification to the
Wilmington USACE office is required if this general permit is utilized.
MITIGATION EVALUATION
Avoidance - Due to the extent of wetlands and surface waters within the project study area, avoidance of
impacts is not possible. Each alternative contains jurisdictional wetland areas or open water areas which
will be subject to impact.
Minimization - Further efforts to minimize impacts to wetlands and surface waters will be made during the
final design phase of this project. Reduced design criteria, such as steeper slopes, will be analyzed and
implemented if practicable to minimize impacts.
Mitigation - Compensatory mitigation is not proposed for this project due to the limited nature of project
impacts. However, BMPs will be used in an effort to minimize impacts, including avoiding placing staging
areas within wetlands. Temporary impacts associated with the construction activities could be mitigated by
replanting disturbed areas with native species and removal of temporary fill material upon project
completion.
14
PROTECTED SPECIES
FEDERAL PROTECTED SPECIES
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T), or officially proposed (P) for
such listing, are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.). The following federal protected species are listed for Scotland County (current listed dated
February 27, 2000):
TABLE 4
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Common Name Scientific Name Status
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T(S/A)
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E
Canby's dropwort Oxypolis canbyi E
Rough-leaved loosestrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia E
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii E
American chaffseed Schwalbea americana E
American alligator - This large reptile (6 to 19 ft (1.8 to 5.8 m) long) has a broad snout, a short neck and a
laterally compressed tail. Adults are blackish to dark gray. Juveniles are black with yellow crossbands
(Martof 1980). 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.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No biological opinion is required.
There is a documented occurrence of the American alligator approximately 0.5 mile (0.8 km) SE of
Bridge No. 46 at Maxton Pond. American alligator is listed as threatened based on its similarity in
appearance to other federally-listed crocodilians. This species is not biologically endangered or
threatened and is not subject to Section 7 consultation. Big Shoe Heel Creek provides suitable
habitat for American alligator 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.
Red-cockaded woodpecker - This small woodpecker (7 to 8.5 inches (177 to 2.15 mm) long) has a black
head, prominent white cheek patch, and black-and-white barred back. Males often have red markings
(cockades) behind the eye, but the cockades may be absent or difficult to see (Potter et al. 1980). Primary
habitat consists of mature to over-mature southern pine forests dominated by loblolly (Pinus taeda), long-
leaf (P. palustris), slash (P. ellioti?), and pond (P. serotins) pines (Thompson and Baker 1971). Nest
cavities are constructed in the heartwood of living pines, generally older than 70 years, that have been
infected with red-heart disease. Nest cavity trees tend to occur in clusters, which are referred to as
colonies (FWS 1985). The woodpecker drills holes into the bark around the cavity entrance, resulting in a
shiny, resinous buildup around the entrance that allows for easy detection of active nest trees. Pine
flatwoods or pine-dominated savannas, which have been maintained by frequent natural fires, serve as
15
ideal nesting and foraging sites for this woodpecker. Development of a thick understory may result in
abandonment of cavity trees.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No evidence of RCWs (birds or cavities) was found in the project study area. The pines in the
residential yards provide marginal habitat, but the residential yards are isolated from other large
pine stands by more than 300 feet (91 m) of unsuitable habitat. The isolation of the marginal
habitat from any potential nesting habitat renders this area unsuitable for foraging. RCWs are not
expected to occur in or utilize any habitat in the project study area. According to NHP, there are
no occurrences of RCWS within 3.0 miles (4.8 km) of the project study area.
Canby's dropwort - Canby's dropwort is an erect perennial (30 to 47 inches (762 to 1,194 mm) tall) and
has slender, quill-like leaves. The plant has compound umbels of small white flowers that have pale green
sepals, possibly with a tint of red (FWS 1992). Flowering takes place from May to early August. The plant
can reproduce vegetatively by numerous pale, fleshy rhizomes. This species grows in coastal plain
habitats, with little or no canopy cover, such as wet meadows, wet pine savannas, ditches, sloughs, and
edges of cypress ponds. Canby's dropwort also grows best in acidic, deep, poorly-drained soils with a high
organic content.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The proposed project will not affect Canby's dropwort. Suitable habitat for this species, consisting
of wet meadows, wet pine savannas, ditches, and cypress ponds with little or no canopy cover was
not identified within the project study area. Canopy cover in forested areas of the project study
area are too dense to support an herbaceous layer that could include Canby's dropwort. Open
roadsides in the project study area are extensively maintained through mowing and the application
of herbicides. In addition, these areas are to dry too support suitable habitat for Canby's dropwort
or its associates.
Rough-leaved loosestrife - The rough-leaved loosestrife is a rhizomatous perennial herb that often
reaches the height of 2 ft (0.6 m). Plants are dormant in the winter, with the first leaves appearing in late
March or early April. The triangular leaves typically occur in whorls of 3 or 4. Leaves are typically sessile,
entire, 0.3-0.4 inches (7-10 mm) wide, broadest at the base, and have three prominent principal veins
(Godfrey and Wooten 1981). Five-lobed yellow flowers, approximately 0.6 inches (15 mm) across, are
produced on a loose terminal raceme 1-4 inches (25-101 mm) long (Godfrey and Wooten 1981). Rough-
leaved loosestrife is reported to flower from late May to June (FWS 1995). Seeds are formed by August,
but the small, rounded capsules do not dehisce until October. Populations also reproduce asexually from
rhizomes, with rhizomes producing several shoots.
The rough-leaved loosestrife is endemic to Coastal Plain and Sandhill regions of the Carolinas. Typical
habitat of the rough-leaved loosestrife consists of the wet ecotone between longleaf pine savannas and
wet, shrubby areas, where lack of canopy vegetation allows abundant sunlight into the herb layer. This
species is fire maintained; suppression of naturally occurring fires has contributed to the loss of habitat in
our state. In the absence of fire, rough-leaved loosestrife may persist. for several years in an area with
dense shrub encroachment; however, reproduction is reported to be suppressed under these conditions,
16
leading to eventual local extirpation (FWS 1995). Kral (1983) indicates that rough-leaved loosestrife is
typically found growing in black sandy peats or sands with a high organic content. Because rough-leaved
loosestrife is an obligate wetland species (Reed 1988), drainage of habitat also has an adverse effect on
the plant.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The proposed project will not affect rough-leaved loosestrife. No suitable habitat, consisting of the
wet ecotone between longleaf pine savannas and wet shrubby areas, was identified in the project
study area. Canopy cover in forested areas of the project study.area is too dense to support an
herbaceous layer that could include rough-leaved loosestrife. Open roadsides in the project study
area are extensively maintained through mowing and the application of herbicides. No rough-
leaved loosestrife was observed during the site visit.
Michaux's sumac- Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent, deciduous, rhizomatous shrub, usually less
than 2 feet (0.6 m) high. The alternate, compound leaves consist of 9 to 13 hairy, round-based, toothed
leaflets borne on a hairy rachis that may be slightly winged (Radford et al. 1968). Small male and female
flowers are produced during June on separate plants; female flowers are produced on terminal, erect
clusters followed by small, hairy, red fruits (drupes) in August and September. Michaux's sumac tends to
grow in disturbed areas where competition is reduced by periodic fire or other disturbances, and may grow
along roadside margins or utility right-of-ways. In the Sandhills, Michaux's sumac tends to occur in loamy
swales (Weakley 1993). It may also occur in sandy or rocky, open woods associated with basic soils
(Radford et a/., 1968). Michaux's sumac ranges from south Virginia through Georgia in the inner Coastal
Plain and lower Piedmont.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The proposed project will not affect Michaux's sumac. Upland roadsides exist as fill through
swamp. Other uplands occur in maintained lawns and pastures that are too frequently maintained
to provide suitable habitat. Forested areas in the project study area are too dense to support
Michaux's sumac. No Michaux's sumac was observed during the site visit.
American chaffseed - American chaffseed is a perennial root-parasitic herb that stands 1 to 2 ft (0.3 to
0.6 m) tall. The altemately-leaved plant is erect and simple, or branched only at the base. The fleshy
leaves are yellow-green or dull green with red undertones, and become smaller and narrower from the
base of the plant to the top (Kral 1983). Flowers are arranged on a spike-like raceme and bloom from April
to June. Chaffseed occurs in grass/sedge assemblages with moist acidic sandy loams or sandy peat
loams. These assemblages typically exist in moist pine flatwoods, savannas, bog borders, and open oak
woods that are maintained by fire.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The proposed project will not affect American chaffseed. Suitable habitat, consisting of open
savannas, bog borders and oak woods, was not identified within the project study area. Canopy
cover is too dense to provide suitable habitat in most of the project study area. The suppression of
fire has resulted in a community structure that does not provide habitat for American chaff-seed.
17
Open roadsides in the project study area are extensively maintained through mowing and the
application of herbicides.
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN
The February 27, 2001 FWS list also includes a category of species designated as "Federal species of
concern". (FSC). The FSC designation provides no federal protection under the ESA for the species listed.
The presence of potential suitable habitat (Amoroso 1999, LeGrand and Hall 1999) within the project study
area has been evaluated for the following FSC species listed for Scotland County:
TABLE 5
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN (FSC)
Common Name Scientific Name Potential
Habitat State
Status*
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis N SC
Carolina gopher frog Rana capito capito Y SC (PT)
Northern pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus N SC
Southern hognose snake Heterodon sinus Y SR (PSC)
Awned meadowbeauty Rhexia aristosa N T
Bog spicebush Lindera subcoriacea N E
Boykin's lobelia Lobelia boykinii N C
Carolina ashhodel Tofieldia glabra N C
Conferva pondweed Potamogeton confervoides N C
Pickering's dayflower Stylisma pickeringii var. pickeringii Y E
Rough-leaved yellow-eyed grass Xyris scabrifolia N C
Sandhills bog lily Lilium iridollae N T
Sandhills milkvetch Astragalus michauxii Y T
Spring-flowering goldenrod Solidago verna Y T
Wavyleaf wild quinine Parthenium radfordii Y W1
White wicky Kalmia cuneata Y E-SC
Savanna cam to us Cam to us carolinae N C
* E-Endangered, T-Threatened, SC- Special Concern, C -Candidate, W - Watch List, P - Proposed,
SR - Significantly Rare.
NHP files document one occurrence of FSC species within 3.0 miles (4.8 km) of the project study area.
The southern hognose snake (Heterodon simus) has been documented 2.3 miles (3.7 km) northeast of the
project study corridor off SR 1369.
STATE PROTECTED SPECIES
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state list as Endangered (E), Threatened (f), 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.).
18
NHP records indicate the occurrence of three state-listed species within 3.0 miles (4.8 km) of the project
study area, including the previously mentioned southern hognose snake, a FSC species. A historic record
(last observed in 1979) of twisted-leaved goldenrod (Solidago tortifolia) (SR) was documented 2.2 miles
(3.6 km) west of the project study area adjacent to SR 1613.
The pinewoods darter (Etheostoma mariae) (SC) has been documented in Big Shoe Heel Creek,
approximately 2.2 miles (3.6 km) upstream of the project study area. This species is endemic to the
sandhills area just below the fall line in the Little Pee Dee River (Rhode 1994). The pinewoods darter is
found in small to medium-sized creeks and is typically associated with submerged aquatic vegetation.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission requests that no in-water work be performed between
April 1 and June 15 to protect sunfish spawning (see letter in Appendix). The NCDOT will observe this
moratorium. The NCDOT will also be replacing the existing bridge in-place, with traffic being maintained
off-site during construction, which should also help to minimize potential impact to the sunfish population.
VII. CULTURAL RESOURCES
COMPLIANCE GUIDELINES
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 the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be given reasonable opportunity to comment on federally funded, licensed, or permitted
projects that have an effect on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places.
HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE
A field survey of the area of potential effect (APE) was conducted by Montell Irvin and Lisa Warlick of RKA
on May 16, 2000. Photographs of all structures within the APE were submitted to Ms. Mary Pope Furr of
the NCDOT in a meeting on May 25, 2000. The photographs were reviewed by the NCDOT, FHWA, and
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on June 15, 2000 and it was determined that there are no
structures within the APE that are in or qualify for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. A
memorandum from the SHPO and a copy of the SHPO concurrence form, dated June 15, 2000, are
provided in the Appendix of this report.
ARCHAEOLOGY
Based on comments received from the SHPO, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources for inclusion
in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by this project. Therefore, no archaeological
investigations will be conducted for this project.
19
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Replacement of Bridge No. 46 will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment. The project should have an overall positive impact due to the improvement of existing poor
bridge conditions.
This project will not have an adverse effect on any prime, important or unique farmlands; therefore it is
exempt from the Farmland Protection Policy Act.
No publicly owned parks or recreational facilities, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or historic sites of national,
state or local significance in the immediate vicinity of the project will be impacted.
No adverse effects to air quality are expected to result from this project. This project is an air quality
"neutral' project, so it is not required to be included in the regional emissions analysis (if applicable), and a
project level CO analysis is not required. Since the project is located in an attainment area, 40 CFR Part 51
is not applicable. If vegetation or wood debris is disposed of by open burning, it 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 air quality, and no additional reports are required.
Ambient noise levels may increase during the construction of this project; however this increase will be
only temporary and usually confined to daylight hours. There should be no notable change in traffic
volumes after this project is complete. Therefore, this project will have no adverse effect on existing noise
levels. Noise receptors in the project area will not be impacted by this project. This evaluation completes
the assessment requirements for highway noise set forth in 23 CFR Part 772. No additional reports are
required.
It is unlikely that any archaeological resources listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places will be affected by this project.
No adverse effect on the overall public is expected. There will be some inconvenience to local travel due
to the closure of SR 1612. Scotland County Emergency Services Department indicates that this project
will not significantly impact their response time.
Scotland County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The project is not
located in a Detailed Study Area, but is located within a Zone A floodplain. There are currently no insurable
structures upstream of the project that are being flooded. Since the proposed replacement structure is an
in-kind replacement, it is anticipated that this project will not have any adverse effect or impact on the
existing floodplain or adjacent properties in the area.
Geotechnical borings for the bridge foundation will likely be necessary.
This project is not expected to impact any existing underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites.
Based on the assessment of the existing human and natural environment, it is concluded that no adverse
environmental effect will result from the replacement of Bridge No. 46.
20
IX. REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina. North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh, 85 pp.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS -79131. 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. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 100 pp.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) 1999. Water Quality Stream Classifications
Downloaded from http;//h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/strmclass/alpha/new/html on 10 February 2000.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) 1999. Biological Assessment Unit.
http://www.esb.enr.stae.nc.us/BAUwww/benthicbasin.htm on 05 June 2000.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) 1999. Active NPDES Permits.
http;//h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/documents/permits.xis on 05 June 2000.
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). 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.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Basinwide Assessment Report Support Document:
Lumber River Basin. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Raleigh. 139 pp.
Division of Planning and Assessment (DPA) 1991. North Carolina Environmental Permit Directory. North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1985. Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan. U.S. Department of
the Interior, Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia. 88 pp.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 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 (FWS). 1994. Agency Draft Rough-leaved Loosestrife Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Aervice, Atlanta, GA. 37 pp.
Godfrey R. K. and J. Wooten. 1981. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Southeastern United States. The
University of Georgia Press, Athens, Georgia. 933 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.
Kral, R. 1983. A Report on Some Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Forest-related Vascular Plants of the
South. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region, Atlanta, GA.
Technical Publication R8-TP 2. 1305 pp.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., and S.P. Hall. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 91 pp.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the
Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 264 pp.
21
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 412 pp.
Potter, E.F., J.F.. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 408 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. 408 pp.
Reed, P. B. 1988. National List of Plant Species That Occur In Wetlands: Southeast (Region 2). U. S.
Fish and Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 88(26.2). 124 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.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Geomorphology. Printed Media Companies, Minneapolis Minnesota.
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, N.C.
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh. 325 pp.
Thompson, R.L. and W.W. Baker. 1971. A survey of red-cockaded woodpeckers nesting habitat
requirements (pp. 170-186). In R.L. Thompson ed., The Ecology and Management of the Red-
cockaded Woodpecker. Tall Timbers Research Station,Tallahassee, FL.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1967. Soil Survey of Scotland County, North Carolina. USDA
Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly Soil Conservation Service).
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1974. Hydrologic Units Map, State of North Carolina.
Weakley, A. S. 1993. Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas and Virginia. Working Draft of November 1993.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 575 pp.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp.
22
FIGURES
V Lauemburg
' Maxton
Airport

t 5
1

.
r 1434
I V

t
1436
BYP
74
N J
O
1
E O
? m
B-3515 '' ° ens r
•
. y
o
?
?O
? 1611
O N

/ 612

t
1611
PROJECT LOCH
SCOTLAND
COUNTY
North Carolina Department of
Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development & Environmental
Analysis Branch
.SCALE IN MILES
1 0 1
FIGURE I
AREA LOCATION MAP
BRIDGE NO. 46 ON SR 1612
OVER BIG SHOE HEEL CREEK
SCOTLAND COUNTY. NORTH CAROLINA
TIP PROJECT B-3515
BRIDGE #46 VIEW OF NORTH (UPSTREAM) SIDE, LOOKING WEST FIGURE 2
SR 1612 LOOKING WEST AT BRIDGE #46
BRIDGE #46 VIEW OF NORTH (UPSTREAM) SIDE, LOOKING EAST FIGURE 3
BRIDGE #46 VIEWED FROM SOUTH (DOWNSTREAM) SIDE
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATE A - IN PLACE WITH
OFF SITE DETOUR
ALTERNATE B - IN PLACE WITH
ON SITE DETOUR
BEGIN ALTERNATE A
Pat Sta. 10+00.00
END ALTERNATE A
+00 PT Sta. 2l +58.14
40.0' +pp
60.0` Q0.0 ?.
60.0'
SR ;612 b ?,
5R l61l
£ E E E
+00 +G +58.14
BEGIN DETOUR 60.0' WOODS 60' 40.0'
PC Sta. 10+00.00 60.0'
END DETOUR
PT Sta. 20+75.85
LEGEND
PROPOSED ROADWAY FOR ALTS A & B
TEMPORARY DETOUR FOR ALT 6
TEMPORARY DETOUR STRUCTURE
® CREEK
EXISTING ROADWAY
® PROPOSED STRUCTURE
NGRi{ C,4
® EXISTING STRUCTURE
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
,.h FOR R- W i, DCKPPIOX `y
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ^ a
;O 107 :,IF, "OR
?F?VT cQ??
OF 7R
FIGURE 4
i
B74
Y
U
PROJECT LOCA
. ? l
<
At-Grade Crossing
SR 1610 (S. Rocky Ford Rd.)
Laurinburg & Southern Co. R/R
L2

` A

1611

47,

VV
I-
ilr4
r,0_1 SCALE IN MILES
1 0
SCOTLAND
COUNTY
North Carolina Department of
Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development & Environmental
Analysis Branch
///, OFF-SITE DETOUR ROUTE
FIGURE 5.

PEED
SPEED
YEAR ADT (2002
_AR ADT (2025)
DUALS
,4L CLASSIFICATION
GRADE
BRIDGE VATION
APPENDIX
E North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
TO: Missy Dickens, PE
Project Engineer, NCDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Co dinat r /
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: August 8, 2000
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Guilford, Randolph, and Scotland counties of
North Carolina. TIP Nos. B-3464, B-3504, B-3515 and B-3516.
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the subject project. Our
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
On bridge replacement projects of this scope our standard recommendations are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require
work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal
and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human and wildlife passage
beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and does not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to
original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the project. Disturbed
areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and native tree species should
be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x 10'. If possible, when using temporary
structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries - 1721 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 2 7699-1 72 1
Telephone: [phone] ext. 281 - Fax: [phone]
Bridge Memo 2 August 8, 2000
saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and
root mat intact, allows the area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the
steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the option of
requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and we can
recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist Mr. Tim
Savidge should be notified. Special measures to protect these sensitive species may be
required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
information on requirements of the Endangered Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy entitled
"Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997)" should
be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
11. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources
must be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be
maintained regularly, especially following rainfall events.
12. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
13. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area.
Sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used
where possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
14. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into streams.
15. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and
should be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when
construction is completed.
16. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and
maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are
used:
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for fish passage. Generally, this means that the
culvert or pipe invert is buried at least 1 foot below the natural stream bed. If
multiple cells are required the second and/or third cells should be placed so that their
bottoms are at stream bankful stage (similar to Lyonsfield design). This could be
Bridge Memo
3 August 8, 2000
accomplished by constructing a low sill on the upstream end of the other cells that
will divert low flows to another cell. This will allow sufficient water depth in the
culvert or pipe during normal flows to accommodate fish movements. If culverts are
long, notched baffles should be placed in reinforced concrete box culverts at 15 foot
intervals to allow for the collection of sediments in the culvert, to reduce flow
velocities, and to provide resting places for fish and other aquatic organisms moving
through the structure.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to
remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated so that no channel realignment or widening is
required. Widening of the stream channel at the inlet or outlet of structures usually
causes a decrease in water velocity causing sediment deposition that will require future
maintenance.
4. Riprap should not be placed on the stream bed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing
stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed
and the approach fills removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills should be removed
down to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted with
native tree species. If the area that is reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore
the area to wetlands. If successful, the site may be used as wetland mitigation for the subject
project or other projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
B-3515 - Scotland County - Bridge No. 46 over Big Shoe Heel Creek. Big Shoe Heel Creek
is fairly small at this crossing and likely does not support anadromous fish. There is a good
fishery for sunfish. We request that no in-water work be performed between April 1 and
June 15 to protect sunfish spawning. We request that bridge No. 46 be replaced with a
bridge at its existing location with road closure. If any additional widening is necessary, it
should be done on the North or upstream side of the existing bridge. We are not aware of
any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
2. B-3516 - Scotland County - Bridge No. 59 over Gum Swamp Creek. Gum Swamp Creek is
small at this crossing and likely does not support anadromous fish. However, we do request
that no in-water work be performed between April 1 and June 15 to protect sunfish spawning.
We request that bridge No. 59 be replaced with a bridge at its existing location wirh road
closure. If additional widening is necessary, it should be done to the Southeast or
downstream side of the existing bridge. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered
species in the project vicinity.
3. B-3504 - Randolph County - Bridge No. 363 over Caraway Creek. Caraway Creek is a
medium sized Piedmont stream with good water quality and good aquatic species diversity.
We request that no in-water work be performed between April 1 and June 15 to protect
sunfish egg and fry stages from sedimentation. We also request that High Quality Water
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures be used to protect freshwater mussels in the
Bridge Memo
4 August 8, 2000
project area. At this site, we have found the following state listed mussels, Atlantic pigtoe,
Carolina creekshell, Brook floater, and creeper.
4. B-3464 - Guilford County - Bridge No. 162 over North Buffalo Creek. We have no specific
concerns at this site.
We request that NCDOT routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife
resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. The NCDOT should install and maintain
sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the project and prevent wet concrete from
contacting water in or entering into these streams. Replacement of bridges with spanning
structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box culverts, is recommended in most cases.
Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along streambanks, reducing habitat fragmentation
and vehicle related mortality at highway crossings.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on these projects.
o?PP??E"T°fUnited States Department of the Interior
y o FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
_ Post Office Box 33726 /
M,RCH 9 Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
August 4, 2000
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
R E CF?L
4& k opmeNt
Ys1
Thank you for your June 28, 2000 request for information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) on the potential environmental impacts of proposed bridge replacements in
Scotland, Randolph and Guilford Counties, North Carolina. This report provides scoping
information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (FWCA) (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report also serves as initial scoping comments to
federal and state resource agencies for use in their permitting and/or certification processes for
this project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace the following
bridge structures:
1. B-3515 Bridge No. 46 on SR 1612 over Big Shoe Heel Creek, Scotland County;
2. B-3516 Bridge No. 59 on SR 1614 over Gum Swamp Creek, Scotland County;
3. B-3504 Bridge No. 363 on SR 1331 over Caraway Creek, Randolph County; and,
4. B-3464 Bridge No. 162 on SR 2832 over North Buffalo Creek, Guilford County.
The following recommendations are provided to assist you in your planning process and to
facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we recommend that proposed
highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors, or
previously developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. Areas
exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed and region should be
avoided. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings
and/or occur on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures
that maintain natural water flows and hydraulic regimes without scouring, or impeding fish and
wildlife passage, should be employed. Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced
through wetland areas. Roadway embankments and fill areas should be stabilized by using
appropriate erosion control devices and techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in
sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps of the Johns, McColl, Farmer, and Greensboro
7.5 Minute Quadrangles show wetland resources in the specific work areas. However, while the
NWI maps are useful for providing an overview of a given area, they should not be relied upon in
lieu of a detailed wetland delineation by trained personnel using an acceptable wetland
classification methodology. Therefore, in addition to the above guidance, we recommend that
the environmental documentation for this project include the following in sufficient detail to
facilitate a thorough review of the action.
1. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted by
filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact 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.
2. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made to
identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts. Opportunities to
protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation easement, should be
explored at the outset.
The document presents a number of scenarios for replacing each bridge, ranging from in-place to
relocation, with on-site and off-site detours. The Service recommends that each bridge be
replaced on the existing alignment with an off-site detour.
The enclosed lists identify the federally-listed endangered and threatened species, and Federal
Species of Concern (FSC) that are known to occur in Scotland, Randolph, and Guilford Counties.
The Service recommends that habitat requirements for the listed species be compared with the
available habitats at the respective project sites. If suitable habitat is present within the action
area of the project, biological surveys for the listed species should be performed. Environmental
documentation that includes survey methodologies, results, and NCDOT's recommendations
based on those results, should be provided to this office for review and comment.
FSC's are those plant and animal species for which the Service remains concerned, but further
biological research and field study are needed to resolve the conservation status of these taxa.
Although FSC's receive no statutory protection under the ESA, we encourage the NCDOT to be
alert to their potential presence, and to make every reasonable effort to conserve them if found.
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
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Tom
McCartney at 919-856-4520, ext. 32.
Sincerely,
I dj-
Dr. Garland B. Pardue
Ecological Services Supervisor
Enclosures
cc:
COE, Raleigh, NC (Eric Alsmeyer)
COE, Wilmington, NC (David Timpy)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessey)
NCDNR, Northside, NC (David Cox)
FHWA, Raleigh, NC (Nicholas Graf)
EPA, Atlanta, GA (Ted Bisterfield)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:07/31/00:919/856-4520 extension 32:\4brdgssc.otl
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Invertebrates
Dwarf wedge mussel Alasmidonta heterodon Endangered
Yellow lance Elliptio lanceolata FSC
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni FSC*
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis.cariosa FSC
Green floater Lasmigona subviridus FSC
Vascular Plants
Tall larkspur Delphinium exaltatum FSC
Smooth coneflower Echinacea laevigata Endangered
Heller's trefoil Lotus helleri FSC
Harperella Ptilimnium nodosum Endangered
GREENE COUNTY
Vertebrates
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
GUILFORD COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bald eagle - Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
HALIFAX COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis FSC
Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulea FSC
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Invertebrates
Dwarf wedge mussel Alasmidonta heterodon Endangered
Yellow lance Elliptio lanceolata FSC
Tar spinymussel Elliptio steinstansana Endangered
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni FSC
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa FSC
Chowanoke crayfish Orconectes virginiensis FSC
Tar River crayfish (=Albermarle Procambarus medialis FSC
crayfish)
Vascular Plants
Bog St. John's-wort Hypericum adpressum FSC
Carolina least trillium Trillium pusillum var. pusillum FSC
January 15, 1999 Page 20 oj49
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
PITT COUNTY
Vertebrates
Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslowii FSC
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus FSC*
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Manatee Trichechus manatus Endangered
Invertebrates
Tar spinymussel Elliptio steinstansana Endangered
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni FSC
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa FSC
Tar River crayfish Procambarus medialis FSC*
Vascular Plants
Savanna cowbane Oxypolis ternata FSC
Carolina asphodel Tofieldia glabra FSC
POLK COUNTY
Vertebrates
Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulea FSC
Southern Appalachian woodrat Neotoma floridana haematoreia FSC
Invertebrates
Wyandot (=grizzled) skipper Pyrgus wyandot FSC*
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria dana FSC
Vascular Plants
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf Herastylis naniflora Threatened
French Broad heartleaf Hexastylis rhombiformis FSC
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Large-flowered Barbara's buttons Marshallia grandiflora FSC*
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata FSC*
Bigleaf scurfpea Orbexilum macrophyllum FSC*
Divided-leaf ragwort Senecio millefolium FSC
White irisette Sisyrinchium dichotomum Endangered
RANDOLPH COUNTY
Critical Habitat Designation:
Cape Fear shiner, Netropis mekistocholas - Approximately 1.5 miles of Fork Creek, from
a point 0.1 river mile upstream of Randolph County Road 2873 Bridge downstream to the
Deep River then downstream approximately 4.1 river miles of the Deep River in Randolph
and Moore Counties, North Carolina, to a point 2.5 river miles below Moore County Road
1456 Bridge. Constituent elements include clean streams with gravel, cobble, and boulder
January 15. 1999 Page 37 of 49

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
substrates with pools, riffles, shallow runs and slackwater areas with large rock outcrops and
side channels and pools with water of good quality with relatively low silt loads.
Vertebrates.
Cape Fear shiner Notropis mekistocholas Endangered
Invertebrates
Brook floater Alasmidonta varicosa FSC
Pee Dee crayfish ostracod Dactylocythere peedeensis FSC*
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni FSC
Carolina creekshell Villosa vaughaniana FSC
Vascular Plants
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
RICHMOND COUNTY
Vertebrates
Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum Endangered
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis FSC
Rafinesque's big-eared bat Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) rafinesquii FSC**
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus FSC*
Robust redhorse Moxostroma robustum FSC
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Northern pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus FSC
Invertebrates
Arogos skipper Atrytone arogos arogos FSC**
Vascular Plants
Georgia indigo-bush Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana FSC*
Sandhills milkvetch Astragalus michauxii FSC
White wicky Kalmia cuneata FSC
Sandhills bog lily Lilium iridollae FSC*
Bog spicebush Lindera subcoriacea FSC
Rough-leaved loosestrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia Endangered
Confervapondweed Potamogeton confervoides FSC
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered
Pickering's dawnflower Stylisma pickeringii var. pickeringii FSC
Carolina asphodel Tofieldia glabra FSC
Roughleaf yellow-eyed grass Xyris scabrifolia FSC
ROBESON COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis FSC
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T(S/A)
Rafinesque's big-eared bat Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) rafinesquii FSC
January 15, 1999 Page 38 of 49
COMMON NAMB . SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Mountain catchfly Silene ovata FSC**
White irisette Sisyrinchium dichotomum Endangered
Nonvascular. Plants
Rock gnome-lichen Gymnoderma lineare Endangered
SAMPSON COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis FSC
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T(S/A)
Rafinesque's big-eared bat Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) rafinesquii FSC**
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus FSC*
Mimic glass lizard Ophisaurus mimicus FSC*
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Carolina gopher frog Rana capito capito FSC
Invertebrates
American sand burrowing mayfly Dolania americana FSC
Vascular Plants
Venus flytrap Dionea muscipula FSC
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
White wicky Kalmia cuneata FSC
Pondberry Lindera melissifolia Endangered
Pondspice Litsea aestivalis FSC
Carolina bogmint Macbridea caroliniana FSC
Spring-flowering goldenrod Solidago verna FSC
Nonvascular Plants
A liverwort Cylindrocolea andersonii FSC*
SCOTLAND COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis FSC
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T(S/A)
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus FSC
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Northern pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus FSC**
Carolina gopher frog Rana capito capito FSC
Vascular Plants
Sandhills milkvetch Astragalus michauxii FSC
Resinous boneset Eupatorium resinosum FSC
White wicky Kalmia cuneata FSC
Sandhills bog lily Lilium iridollae FSC*
Bog spicebush Lindera subcoriacea FSC
January 15, 1999 Page 40 of 49
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Boykin's lobelia Lobelia boykinii FSC
Rough-leaved loosestrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia Endangered
Canby's dropwort Oxypolis canbyi Endangered
Wavyleaf wild quinine Parthenium radfordii FSC
Conferva pondweed Potamogeton confervoides FSC
Awned meadowbeauty Rhexia aristosa FSC
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered
American chaffseed Schwalbea americana Endangered
Spring-flowering goldenrod Solidago verna FSC
Pickering's dawnflower Stylisma pickeringii var. pickeringii FSC
Carolina asphodel Tofieldia glabra FSC
Roughleaf yellow-eyed grass Xyris scabrifolia FSC
Nonvascular Plants
Savanna campylopus Campylopus carolinae FSC
STANLY COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
Invertebrates
Brook floater Alasmidonta varicosa FSC
Carolina creekshell Villosa vaughaniana FSC
Vascular Plants
Georgia aster Aster georgianus FSC
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Heller's trefoil Lotus helleri FSC
Savanna cowbane Oxypolis ternata FSC
Yadkin River goldenrod Solidago plumosa FSC*
Riverbank vervain verbena riparia FSC*
STOKES COUNTY
Vertebrates
Orangefin madtom Noturus gilberti FSC
Invertebrates
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria diana FSC*
Vascular Plants
Small-anthered bittercress Cardamine micranthera Endangered
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata FSC
January 15, 1999 Page 41 of 49
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890

L. REPLY REFER TO August 2, 2000
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. 200001525, 200001526, 200001527, 200001528, 200001529, 200001530,
200001531.
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Reference your letters dated June 7, 2000, June 28, 2000, and July 3, 2000
regarding the following proposed bridge replacement projects, including those of Group
XXVH:
1. TIP Project B-3449, Duplin County, Bridge No. 204 on SR 1827 over Northeast
Cape Fear River, Action ID 200001525.
2. TIP Project B-3626, Carteret County, Bridge No. 26 on SR 1154 over a branch
of the Newport River, Action ID 200001526.
3. TIP Project B-3884, Onslow County, Bridge No. 40 on SR 1308 over Squires
Run, Action ID 200001527.
4. TIP Project B-3887, Pender County, Bridge No. 116 on SR 1520 over Shaken
Creek, Action ID 200001528.
5. TIP Project B-3516, Scotland County, Bridge No. 59 on SR 1614 over Gum
Swamp Creek, Action ID 200001529.
6. TIP Project B-3515, Scotland County, Bridge No. 46 on SR 1612 over Big Shoe
Heel Creek, Action ID 200001530.
7. TIP Project B-3613, Bladen/Sampson County, Bridge No. 44 on NC 41 over
South River, Action ID 200001531.
Based on the information provided in the referenced letters, it appears that each
proposed bridge replacement project may impact jurisdictional wetlands. Department of
the Army (DA) permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of
1977, as amended, will be required for the discharge of excavated or fill material in waters
of the United States or any adjacent wetlands in conjunction with these projects, including
disposal of construction debris. Specific permit requirements will depend on design of the
projects, extent of fill work within the waters of the United States, including wetlands,
construction methods, and other factors.
Although these projects may qualify as a Categorical Exclusion, to qualify for
nationwide permit authorization under Nationwide Permit #23, the project planning
report should contain sufficient information to document that the proposed activity does
not have more than a minimal individual or cumulative impact on the aquatic
environment. Our experience has shown that replacing bridges with culverts often results
in sufficient adverse impacts to consider the work as having more than minimal impacts
on the aquatic environment. Accordingly, the following items need to be addressed in the
project planning report:
a. The report should contain the amount of permanent and temporary impacts to
waters and wetlands as well as a description of the.type of habitat that will be affected.
b. Off-site detours are always preferable to on-site (temporary) detours in wetlands.
If an on-site detour is the recommended action, justification should be provided. On-site
detours can cause permanent wetland impacts due to sediment consolidation resulting
from the on-site detour itself and associated heavy equipment. Substantial sediment
consolidation in wetland systems may in turn cause fragmentation of the wetland and
impair the ecological and hydrologic functions of the wetland. Thus, on-site detours
constructed in wetlands can result in more than minimal wetland impacts. These types of
wetland impacts will be considered as permanent wetland impacts.
For proposed projects and associated on-site detours that cause minimal losses of
wetlands, an approved wetland restoration plan will be required prior to issuance of a DA
nationwide or general permit. For proposed projects and associated on-site detours that
cause significant wetland losses, an individual DA permit and a mitigation proposal for
the unavoidable wetland impacts may be required.
In view of our concerns related to onsite detours constructed in wetlands, recent
field inspections were conducted at each of the proposed project sites and a cursory
determination was made on the potential for sediment consolidation due to an onsite
detour. Based on these inspections, potential for sediment consolidation in wetlands
exists at several of the proposed projects. Therefore, it is recommended that geotechnical
evaluations be conducted at each project site to estimate the magnitude of sediment
consolidation that can occur due to an on-site detour and the results be provided in the
project planning report.
2
Based on our field inspections, we strongly recommend that geotechnical evaluations be
conducted at the following proposed project sites:
1) TIP Project B-3626, Carteret County, Bridge No. 226 on SR 1154 over a
branch of the Newport River, Action ID 200001526.
2) TIP Project B-3884, Onslow County, Bridge No. 40 on SR 1308 over
Squires Run, Action ID 200001527.
3) TIP Project B-3887, Pender County, Bridge No. 116 on SR 1520 over
Shaken Creek, Action ID 200001528.
4) TIP Project B-3516, Scotland County, Bridge No. 59 on SR 1614 over Gum
Swamp Creek, Action ID 200001529.
5) TIP Project B-3515, Scotland County, Bridge No. 46 on SR 1612 over Big
Shoe Heel Creek, Action ID 200001530.
c. Project commitments should include the removal of all temporary fills from
waters and wetlands and "time-of-year" restrictions on in-stream work if recommended
by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission. In addition, if undercutting is necessary for
temporary detours, the undercut material should be stockpiled to be used to restore the
site.
d. All restored areas should be planted with endemic vegetation including trees, if
appropriate.
e. The report should provide an estimate of the linear feet of new impacts to
streams resulting from construction of the project.
f. If a bridge is proposed to be replaced with a culvert, NCDOT must demonstrate
that the work will not result in more than minimal impacts on the aquatic environment,
specifically addressing the passage of aquatic life including anadromous fish. In addition,
the report should address the impacts that the culvert would have on recreational
navigation.
g. The report should discuss and recommend bridge demolition methods and shall
include the impacts of bridge demolition and debris removal in addition to the impacts of
constructing the bridge. The report should also incorporate the bridge demolition policy
recommendations pursuant to the NCDOT policy entitled "Bridge Demolition and
Removal in Waters of the United States" dated September 20, 1999.
Should you have any questions, please call Mr. David L. Timpy at the Wilmington
Field office at 910-251-4634.
Sincerely,

E. David Franklin
NCDOT Team Leader
??vNwz?
STATE
tea`
V w?. 4J? ,Y
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
July 26, 2000
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook h-CC,cA1
Deputy State Histo Preservation Officer
Re: Replace Bridge No. 46 on SR 1612 over Big Shoe Heel Creek,
Scotland County, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1612(2), State
Project No. 8.2590501, TIP Project B-3515, ER 01-7004
Thank you for your memorandum of June 28, 2000, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no properties of architectural,
historic, or archaeological significance which would be affected by the project. Therefore,
we have no comment on the project as currently proposed.
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 919/7334763.
DB:kgc
cc: B. Church, NC DOT
T. Padgett, NC DOT
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] 733-8653
ARCHAEOLOGY 421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4619 [phone] 715-2671
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613 [phone] 715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4618 [phone] 715-4801
+ TIP Federal Aid # ,6RJE- k LpCounty SCbH
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description
SR lLpM ov S e 64.
On (0-15-op , 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 sessionkonsultation
Other
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as are
considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:

wA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency
. ?'t?.1
Date
Date
i?epre ntative, SHPO i Date
'evyL
Date/'State Historic Preservation Of i er J /
If a survey report is prepared. a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
0 ?2
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action ID: 200001530 TIP No. B-3515 State Project No. 8.2590501 County: Scotland
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property Owner: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) ,
r
Address: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager Q 77
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center P -V
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548 M02
Telephone Number: [phone]

Size and Location of project (waterway, road name/number, town, etc.): Bridge No. 46 over Big Shoe Heel
Creek on SR 1612, Scotland County, North Carolina.
Description of Activity: Discharge of fill material, including of debris associated with demolition of the existing
bridge deck not to exceed 70 cubic yards, permanently impacting a total of 0.0 acres of waters of the United States,
including wetlands, and 40 linear feet of stream for construction of TIP Project No. B-3515 for replacement of
Bridge No. 46 over Big Shoe Heel Creek on SR 1612, Scotland County, North Carolina as described in NCDOT
letter dated March 22, 2002. Bridge No. 11 is 205 feet long and 24 feet wide and will be replaced in its existing
location and elevation with anew bridge 240 feet long and 30.0 feet wide. Traffic will be detoured along existing
primary and secondary roads during construction. No in-water construction activities will take place between April
1 and June 15th of any year to protect sunfish spawning.
Applicable Law: X Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1344)
Section 10 (River and Harbor Act of 1899)
Authorization: 23 Nationwide Permit Number
Regional General Permit Number
Your work is authorized by this Regional General (RGP) or Nationwide (NWP) Permit provided it is accomplished
in strict accordance with the attached conditions and your submitted plans. If your activity is subject to Section 404
(if Section 404 block above is checked), before beginning work you must also receive a Section 401 water quality
certification from the N.C. Division of Environmental Management, telephone [phone]. For any activity
within the twenty coastal counties, before beginning work you must contact the N.C. Division of Coastal
Management, telephone [phone].
Please read and carefully comply with the attached conditions of the RGP or NWP. Any violation of the conditions
of the RGP or NWP referenced above may subject the permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order, and/or
appropriate legal action.
This Department of the Army RGP or NWP verification does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain
any other required Federal, State, or local approvals/permits. The permittee may need to contact appropriate State
and local agencies before beginning work.
If there are any questions regarding this authorization or any of the conditions of the RGP or NWP, please contact
Mr. Richard Spencer of the Corps Regulatory Division, Wilmington Field Office at 910-251-4172.
Date April 30, 2002 `
Corps Regulatory Official Telephone No. [phone]
Expiration Date of Verification April 30, 2004
CF: FHWA, NCDENM Division of Water Quality, NCWRC, NCDOT Division 8, Art King.