2002089 Ver 1_Complete File_20020412

?Tydaa $?ATt'o?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPART MNT OF TRANSPORT
MICHAEL F. EASLEY YNDO TIPPETr
GOVERNOR 2 'SECRETARY
March 22, 2002 `F
US Army Corps Of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office 020,589
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403 /
ATTENTION: Mr. Richard Spencer /
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
Subject: Replacement of Bridge No. 59 on SR 1614 over Gum Swamp Creek,
Scotland County, Federal Project No. BRZ-1614(2), State Project No.
8.2590601, T.I.P. Project No. B-3516
Please find attached the Categorical Exclusion for the referenced project. The
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace. Bridge
No. 59 over Gum Swamp Creek in Scotland County. Alternate A (recommended) will
replace the bridge on the existing location with a longer multi-span bridge approximately
155 feet (47.2 meters) in length. During construction, traffic will be detoured off-site
using existing secondary roads. The anticipated let date for this proposed project is May
21, 2002.
The existing structure was constructed by NCDOT in 1961 and contains five
spans totaling 151 feet (46 meters) in length. The bridge has an eight section pre-cast,
pre-stressed concrete channel deck. The substructure is composed of four interior bents
consisting of reinforced concrete caps on timber piles and end bents consisting of
reinforced concrete caps on timber piles and timber bulkheads. 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.
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 WESSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
J
during construction. The resulting temporary fill associated with demolition of the
concrete deck is approximately 60 cubic yards (45.9 cubic meters).
The newstructure will provide a 30-foot (9.1-meter) clear roadway width that
includes two Y'2- ?t' 7, ter) travel lanes with 3 feet (0.9 meters) of lateral clearance
on each side of the Zdway approaches will provide two 12-foot (3.7-meter)
travel lanes' wi fl(2.4-ihile4'wide grassed shoulders. The new structure will be at
)fty ation as the existing grade. Deck and roadway drainage will
approximal` he s
be maintained Yli %j 1jZing a minimum grade of 0.3 percent and a minimum cross-slope of
2.0 percent for- the 1S,'rtased structure and roadway approaches. Current plans also
include two funnel pipe deck drains to reduce the potential for water and ice-related
crashes. Drainage from these funnel pipe drains will flow to rip-rap energy dissipaters
near, the bridge abutments and will be diverted away from the stream.
Gum Swamp Creek is the only jurisdictional surface water resource that will be
impacted. The stream is located within the Lumber River drainage, subbasin 03-07-55,
and federal hydrologic unit 03040204. The North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ) has designated a best usage classification for Gum Swamp Creek of B-SW
from US74 to the NC/SC state line. No Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) or Water
Supplies (WS-1 and WS-II) waters occur within 3.0 miles of the project study area.
However, Gum Swamp Creek is rated as High Quality, Waters (HQW) 0.65 miles
upstream of the project study area.
Eighty linear feet (24.4 meters) of the stream will be permanently impacted
as a result of the bent installation (see attached permit drawings). Temporary impacts
to jurisdictional surface water , include approximately 80 linear feet (24.4 meters)
associated with placement of temporary work pads in the water around pier locations at
the edge of the stream channel. These temporary work pads will be removed and the
affected areas returned to their pre-existing elevations. Jurisdictional wetlands are located
immediately adjacent to the existing bridge. There will be no permanent wetland
impacts. However, the recommended alternative includes temporary impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands of approximately 0.034 acres (0.013 hectares). These temporary
impacts are associated with placement of timber mats to be used for equipment staging
adjacent to the bridge during construction. These timber mats will be rem 1wed and the
affected areas returned to their pre-existing conditions. (See attached permit drawings.)
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 1 and
June 15 in order to protect sunfish spawning.
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. No habitat is available within the project area for all of
these species except for the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis). Habitat for
the red-cockaded woodpecker is located within the project study area; however, no pine
trees will be removed as part of this project. Based on the lack of habitat available and
the lack of change to existing potential habitat, it can be concluded that project
construction will not impact the federally protected species.
Construction details concerning the temporary placement of timber mats in the
wetland area adjacent to the existing bridge and placement of the temporary work pads in
the stream adjacent to the new pier installation locations were not included in the attached
Categorical Exclusion. Therefore, we are requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit
33 authorizing these temporary construction activities. All other 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) and No. 3114 (Temporary Construction, Access and
Dewatering, dated February 11, 1997) will apply to this project. One copy of the CE
document is being provided 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
%G
William 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
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

Crosswoy L
_? ? ? \ ? 501
8-35 16
93 1614 M hur
Cross ads \
Q ? \
1
\ 1614
O
L p, 'NOS
ti
15 O? 1 6
aot i?\
?
1
i
PROJECT LOCATION
SCOTLAND SCALE IN MILES
COUNTY
,.t 1 0
\ FIGURE I Ramey Kemp "lej"lgh, Assoclctes, Inc.
AREA LOCATION MAP
BRIDGE NO. 59 ON SR 1614 TransportatConsulting Engineers
OVER GUM SWAMP CREEK
SCOTLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 4928-A Windy Hill Drive Nortl, Carolina 27605
TIP PROJECT B-3516 [phone] fox '!9191878-5416 -

SCOTLAND-/
,COUNTY
I 108 1626
1100 1 f u?c
1102
1104
/ 1271
1259 / _
1627 '
1103
1100
I 1102
A- \ 1101
7
\ 1100
!e • -
0
C'? S 40 , `• `?
O
). c% . \
? y o ?
x`.•401 16
1670
' 7 ??d
DETOUR ROUTE
1605-
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
SCOTLAND COUNTY
VICINITY PROJECT: 8.2590601 (B-3516)
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE 59
MAP OVER GUM SWAMP CREEK
ON SR 1614
SHEET I OF l0--J
NORTH CAROLINA
?_--____ , J: _? ?\ .? f (/ 7 • ?, / do ? _ ;\ \ ,
!•.r^ ? J ?J-- „ ? ? J ? , //l?f? V' ' i' ? ^ 2 y' 199
208 i.
If 1614 PIC
1614, -l? x
D:D
20a ?u n 1 r
u
%
01 r - ' ( ZOO rJ a I
- ,_.O
II ? ?? o eq
1100
•192 Cem= =?\yl _ \\ 1 _ . '
e ?
S tth Meadows;,
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
®? ? 1L ? Q? ? SCOTLAND. COUNTY,
PROJECT: 8.2590601 (8-3516)
MAP REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE P 59
OVER GUM SWAMP CREEK
ON SR 1514
SHEET 2 OF 10
LEGEND

-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY
L
-? WETLAND
L
® DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
PTT/. DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
IN
?DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE WATERS
• DENOTES MECHANIZED
• • •• •' • CLEARING
E- f- FLOW DIRECTION
T`J TOP OF BANK
WE EDGE OF WATER
C PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
F PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
A PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- NG NATURAL GROUND
PL PROPERTY LINE
- TDE - TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-PDE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
-EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
WATER SURFACE
XXXXX LIVE STAKES
C BOULDER
- - CORE FIBER ROLLS
O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER

PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
(DASHED LINES DENOTE
EXISTNG STRUCTURES)
SINGLE TREE
WOODS LINE
¦ DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
VORTEX ROCK WEIR
00000
RIP RAP
RIP RAP ENERGY
DISSIPATOR BASIN
VANE
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
SCOTLAND COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2590601 (B-3516)
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE 3t 59
OVER GUM SWAMP CREEK
ON SR 1614
SHEET 3 OF 10

?I
I
O Ps
•11
.M
J
aLL- b 0

dZ- as
O b EPLLJ
NwN 'y' z

I
Q: `?
j
U?
LLJ

\ N 0 a0

a
a
-JCL 0
a?
o W .
(-)?
a > o
' W v A a

co z
+00
A 00 W _
o
.n
J
00 "o
N b -b
Q? O ? i- ?' ? •? •Cn
?CL < LO
0 ab
11
CL Lo
?!!4
_O r?
LL?
JW W - - A -
-H Uf- A
LU ?!
_CL
=Q NQ 41
N a N=
-x J? G
O J4 Uo?
U?
W
0 0 ?I
ND
0 0
NOLLJ
W? V
Co
CO
.<-JU N? 3 I I I LU O
-JCL CC
Lti
CONS Lxr 2I -j-
'MVIW
?o? b 3 3
CrW JW \ \
NUS Wn-
? Z Zz W
Lli
::D
l1. Q
N?
I
1
, I
Q- --------------------------- -- --1----- ---"J------
„

uj p
r p. ?
vZ
;
CD c
1 Lo ?r
I
---------------- gF-? --- ------ -- t-------- i------
O T
'
(n c°?

p W i
p
Z
Lu
o
?t Lo o-

J
,
--------------- -------------- - ------------

0 LS J
?I \c-1 r-1 rl
0
4V
U
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
S A M P jf I SCOTLAND COUNTY
(? ® PROJECT: 8.2590601 (B-3516)
C IR®S S d S E `? T I REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE 59
OVER GUM SWAMP CREEP
ON SR 1614
SHEETS OF 10
O
O
+ r--- _ _ _ - =
--- ,-------
--- -----------
N 1 ' I NC2 I ,
' i JCL
I r U? ? , a

1 co
I
I a

N QQ= CD
cr-a- V) - U
1 W ? 1 CLZN

1 O
I O I r
I 1 u jo-I
I -3V
o
O I O N y
I p
..1
O 1 w
- - - - - - - -
+ 1 .}.
- 1 ,
1- - - - - --
- - - - - - - -
,
- - - - -
0
0
11 p

11

Ia-Q1 ? W W
N
ISM
i OI
i\
U
U
I III'. I \
-------- - V
;------- --- '------------o E-' p
9
x

oI I I
o'

m
I ------------
,

I
I
I ? 1
,
.
I
I
,
I I I
I I -? I
I I NQ I I
I I ? I
cL
J

I - - - - I - - - -I
O O O

N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P 11R ®F I L SCOTLAND COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2590601 (B-3516)
VIEW tt
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE 59
OVER GUM SWAMP CREEK
ON SR 1614
SHEET !o OF 10,
A
d
Q
?v IQ ..i
QQ= ?
?QN 0
0
v
Q.Y
x Q
WoV F-
' W
O
O V)N ;
GW
.a
O+ -;--- -----,-------------- ---------- - NW
r
I
N [ N LtJ?
1
z F-
F-z
'
0 Ld
co Q D
o DO
O
uj-

?-X 0
Z' ` Qo

o' I L
0-
-
?
^Q
I V
VVVV I I V !

I 1

?'
W i ?
'

w 0
.o
I
I .
NI
,I
Z (n
in a} O?
L cw
W it
- ' 1 p co
W

Ld
W
Q?
a
o
', C)
O
O J --------- J ------------
----

0')
_ O 0
^^
Q JJ
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
SCOTLAND COUNTY
D? T A I L OF PROJECT: 8.2590601 (B-3516)
I ®C K W OIJLD\'\,K P A D REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE ; 59
OVER GUM SWAMP CREEK
ON SR 161
SHEET -j OF JO
PARCEL PROPERTY OWNER ADDRESS
O JOHN F. LOCKLEAR 6610 RIVER VIEW DR.
CHARLOTTE, NC 28216
?O CHARLES H. MALLOY P .O. BOX 802,
LAURINBURG, NC 28353
O JOHN R. McLELLON P.O. BOX 465
LAURINBURG, NC 28352
O JOHN F. McNAIR 234 PINE VALLEY ROAD
WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27104
I
I
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
SCOTLAND COUNTY
P IR 0 P EAR 1l
Y
PROJECT: 8.2590601 (B-3516)
® V' V' N E IFk REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE " 59
OVER GUM SWAMP CREEK
ON SR ! 1614
SHEET 8 OF to
11
a

0

H ? U
U
o
Q
CL ar
CO N
O
p
r 00
N
w
LL
U.
7
co y

G ?-

p

p
N
N
C
_
"o C r
, ° o LO
c C
W U M
m
d
_

° Z
O
o Cc °
i
Q U
}
o
?
in O
z = U

.
N N CL c6
O
U) X L
wUE
U
V oo g
= a> I- --3i
iz M ° oo O O
CL to m o o U 4
hw- w e ?- c o CU to d
Q 1- Z LL
3 O

w
U
' Q.
U)
D
N
p
°
U. C O
=av W
7
N
LL z
H
?
c m
v o 0
Z
LL v

C N C
c L? ° O
L L d

Q N
? C

Q a
o
> d m °
a o X
Z W c

N
w
3 LL C
E v o
° 0

°
?
S
N
C ?

CD

O
d w
:3 (D
7 N 0
U ca
g
? U O (n
C',
C `
O S
(p p
t
O +
?
N lL

J '
d 6 ~
(n z 0
F

.TEMPORARY CAUSEWAY
ROCK FILL
SURFACE AREA. BELOW OHW: ,
$?NT I (10 so' ? = Soo S. F.
r
3?+•tT 2 •/f 6x So'? = gao S.F.
= 1300 S;F. ?7 0.030 AeAES
VOLUME BELOW OHW:
(4'k 4') x 5?? 400 c.F..
$?rjT 2 = ?o? x 3.5
? x
50- l7Sv c.?,
? _ '2 J So C.?. 7 8o t. Y.
VOLUME OF CAUSEWAY:
750 G.F
gENT z?= ?0)x x 2750 G.F.
ssorO.f•F. =7 130
TONAGE OF CAUSEWAY:
3570 c? C. F. / 1 oS \ % 1 -rot4 _
)l l 184- Toils
-- - Say, Zoo Tarts'
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
S? T" ? ?(jM? ?} ?jY DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
jlk J? SCOTLAND COUNTY
OF PROJECT: 8.2590501 (B-3516)
QUANTITIES ?j REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE ? 59
OVER GUM SWAMP CREEK
ON SR 1614
SHEET 10 OF 10
i*
SCOTLAND COUNTY
SR 1614
BRIDGE NO. 59 OVER GUM SWAMP CREEK
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1614 (2)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2590601
T.I.P. NO. B-3516
020589
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
APPROVED:
DA E i liam D. Gilmore, P.E., Mana er
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
5[Z9 /0)
DATE Nicholas L. Graf, P.E., Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
SCOTLAND COUNTY
SR 1614
BRIDGE NO. 59 OVER GUM SWAMP CREEK
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1614 (2)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2590601
T.I.P. NO. B-3516
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
MAY 2001
Document Prepared by Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc.
•? Zip ?A?O? •.
? a
?L
Montell W. Irvin, P.E., Project Manager
Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc.
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
Mary Ali Dickens, P.E., Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Thomas R. Kendig, AICP, Unit ad
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
5--05--©/
Date
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
SR 1614
BRIDGE NO.59`OVER GUM SWAMP CREEK
SCOTLAND COUNTY, NC
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT-NO. BRZ-1614 (2)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2590601
T.I.P. NO. B-3516 -
SPECIAL PROJECT COMMITMENTS
NCDOT 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. There is potential for concrete components of
the superstructure to be dropped into Gum Swamp Creek during `demolition and removal. The
maximum temporary fill associated with the removal is approximately 60 cubic yams (46 m3). The
timber and steel components and the concrete caps are slated for removal in :a manner which will
avoid dropping 'them into Gum Swamp Creek.' Removal of the timber piles will likely raise. sediment
concerns and therefore 'a turbidity curtain (siltscreen) is recommended.
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
May 2001
1
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
SR 1614
BRIDGE NO. 59 OVER GUM SWAMP CREEK
SCOTLAND COUNTY, NC
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1614 (2)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2590601
T.I.P. NO. B-3516
Bridge No. 59, located on SR 1614 over Gum Swamp Creek south of the City of Laurinburg in Scotland
County, is listed in the 2000-2006 North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) as B-3516 and is included in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program
(BRZ-1614 (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. 59. Therefore, this project is being processed as a
Federal Categorical Exclusion.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The preferred alternate (Alternate A) consists of replacing the existing bridge in-place with an off-site
detour. Bridge No. 59 will be replaced with a new multi-span bridge approximately 155 ft (47.2 m) in
length. The new structure will provide 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) grassed shoulders. 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 40 mph (65 km/h). It is
expected that all work outside of the existing right-of-way will be completed under construction easement
agreements.
SR 1614 will be closed for approximately 12 to 18 months while the bridge and roadway work is being
completed. Existing traffic will be detoured via SR 1628, US 15401, SR 1627, and SR 1271 (see
Figure 5). The maximum detour length is estimated to be 3.4 miles (5.5 km).
The estimated cost of this project, based on current prices, is $907,600. This amount includes $57,600 for
right-of-way and $850,000 for construction. The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the Draft 2002-
2008 TIP, is $650,000 ($600,000 for construction and $50,000 for right-of-way).
1. PURPOSE AND NEED
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate Bridge No. 59 has a sufficiency rating of 17.7 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. 59 is located on SR 1614 (Bames Bridge Road) southwest of the City of Laurinburg,
approximately 0.1 mile (0.2 km) south of the junction of SR 1677 (Creekside Drive). 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. 59 has a sufficiency rating of 17.7 out
of a possible 100. It was built in 1961 and is in poor condition. The bridge is currently posted for a weight
limit of 19 tons (17,273 kg) for single vehicles and 24 tons (21,818 kg) for truck-tractor semi-trailers (TTST).
The overall length of the five-span bridge is 151 ft (46.0 m). It has an eight section precast, prestressed
concrete channel deck supported by four interior bents that consist of reinforced concrete caps on timber
piles. One of the piles was repaired with a concrete jacket. The end bents consist of reinforced concrete
caps on timber piles and timber bulkheads. The bridge has a clear roadway width of 24.2 ft (7.4 m) which
includes two 11 ft (3.3 m) travel lanes and 1.2 ft (0.4 m) of lateral clearance on each side of the bridge.
The rail-to-rail width is 25.2 ft (7.7 m).
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 1614 is classified as a rural minor collector in the Statewide Functional Classification System. The 2000
average daily traffic volume on SR 1614 over Bridge No. 59 is estimated to be 1,900 vehicles per day
(vpd), which includes 1 percent TTST vehicles and 5 percent dual-tired vehicles. The 2025 design year
average daily traffic volume over the bridge is expected to be 3,900 vpd.
The two-lane facility consists of two 11 ft (3.3 m) travel lanes and has 4 ft (1.2 m) grassed shoulders on
each side of the roadway. The horizontal alignment of SR 1614 is straight and the vertical alignment is flat
within the project area. The speed limit on SR 1614 east of, and over, the bridge is 35 miles per hour
(60 km/h); however, the speed limit increases to 55 mph (90 km/h) west of the bridge. Existing right-of-way
is approximately 60 ft (18.3 m) in width.
SR 1614 is not part of a designated bicycle route nor is it listed in the Transportation Improvement
Program as needing incidental bicycle accommodations.
UTILITIES
The City of Laurinburg has a lift station located on the north side of SR 1614 approximately 250 ft (76.2 m)
east of the existing bridge. Gravity and force-main lines extend eastward along the north side of SR 1614
from the station.
An 8 inch (200 mm) waterline is located approximately 15 ft (4.6 m) off the edge of pavement along the
south side of SR 1614 through the project area.
Overhead power and telephone utilities are located along the north side of SR 1614 east of the bridge.
3
GENERAL INFORMATION
Land use immediately west of the project area is primarily wooded with only sporadic residential
development. There is a children's daycare located on the north side of SR 1614 approximately 2,000 ft
(610 m) west of Bridge No. 59. Land use east of the project area primarily consists of residential
development, with several single-family homes on large lots located along both sides of SR 1614. There is
a residential subdivision located on the south side of SR 1614 east of the project area.
According to Scotland County school officials, four school buses cross Bridge No. 59 twice per day, for a
total of eight trips.
There have been no accidents reported on SR 1614 within the project area between January 1, 1995 and
December 31, 1997.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A 'Do-Nothing" alternate was considered for this project; however, this alternate would eventually
necessitate closure of the bridge due to its poor condition. Therefore, the "Do-Nothing° alternate is not
considered practical.
"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 alternates were studied (see Figure 4). Each alternate consists of replacing Bridge
No. 59 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
alternates would provide a new multi-span bridge approximately 155 ft (47.2 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. The roadway approaches would provide
two 12 ft (3.6 m) travel lanes with 8 ft (2.4 m) grassed shoulders. 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 1614 would be closed
for approximately 12 to 18 months while the bridge and roadway work is being completed. Existing traffic
would be detoured via SR 1628, US 15-401, SR 1627, and SR 1271. The maximum detour length is
estimated to be 3.4 miles (5.5 km). Refer to Figure 5 for illustration of the recommended temporary off-site
detour route.
The total length of the roadway approach work for this alternate is to be 740 ft (226 m).
4
Alternate B
Alternate B involves replacing the existing 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 180 ft (54.9 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 and 2 ft (0.6 m) lateral clearance
on each side. The detour roadway approaches would provide two 10 ft (3.0 m) travel lanes and 6 ft (1.8 m)
grassed 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 lower than the existing roadbed to minimize impacts to wetlands.
The total length of the roadway approach work for this alternate is to be 740 ft (226 m).
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 $348,750 $521,5501
Roadway Approaches $113,600 $302,650
Structure Removal $35,850 $35,850
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $226,800 $389,950
Engineering and Contingencies $125,000 $200,000
Total Construction Cost $850,000 $1,450,000
Right-of-Way/Easement and Utilities $57,600 $58,700
Total Project Cost $907,600 $1,508,700
I Includes temporary structure and its removal.
The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the Draft 2002-2008 TIP, is $650,000 ($600,000 for
construction and $50,000 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 1614 will be closed for approximately 12 to 18 months while the bridge and roadway work is being
completed. Existing traffic will be detoured via SR 1628, US 15-401, SR 1627, and. SR 1271 (see
Figure 5). The maximum detour length is estimated to be 3.4 miles (5.5 km).
The recommended alternate will provide a new multi-span bridge approximately 155 ft (47.2 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. Current plans include deck
drains over the water. Deck drains are desirable from a safety standpoint; the potential for water and ice-
related crashes increases when deck drains are not provided. Since Gum Swamp Creek is not a High
Quality Water, the expense of providing a self-contained bridge drainage system is not justified.
Consequently, deck drains have not been eliminated from the design. The roadway approaches would
provide two 12 ft (3.6 m) travel lanes with 8 ft (2.4 m) grassed shoulders. 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 will be
maintained to facilitate deck and roadway drainage. The design speed of Alternate A will be 40 mph
(65 km/h). The total length of the roadway approach work for this alternate is to be 740 ft (226 m).
It is expected that all work outside the existing right-of-way will be completed under construction easement
agreements.
Alternate A is the recommended alternate because it has a lower construction cost and will impact less
wetlands than Alternate B. The Division Engineer concurs with the recommended alternate and the
proposed off-site detour.
Figure 6 shows the proposed roadway and structure typical sections and design criteria.
VI. NATURAL RESOURCES
Natural resources within the project study area were evaluated to provide: 1) an assessment of natural
resource features within the project study area including descriptions of 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 have been derived from a number of sources
including applicable U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle topographic mapping (McColl,
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.
6
The project study area was walked and visually surveyed for significant features on May 31, 2000. The
preliminary project study area evaluated is approximately 2000 ft (610 m) in length and 500 ft (150 m) in
width, symmetrically centered on SR 1614. 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
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.
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 155 ft (47 m) to 170 ft
(52 m) (USGS McColl, NC quadrangle).
The project study area crosses four soil mapping units. Lakeland sand, 0-20% slopes, (Typic
Quartzipsamments) and Chipley loamy sand (Aquic Quartzipsamments) are nonhydric, well drained soils.
Ocilla loamy sand (Aquic Arenic Paleudult) is a somewhat poorly drained nonhydric soil. Soils associated
with Gum Swamp Creek drainage are mapped as "Swamp" and consist of very poorly drained soils that
are variable in texture.
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). Gum Swamp Creek originates in eastern Richmond
County and flows south to its confluence with the Little Pee Dee River in Dillon County, South Carolina.
This stream has been assigned Stream Index Number (SIN) 14-32-(12) by the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) from US 74, approximately 8.0 miles (13 km) upstream of the project study area, to
the North Carolina/South Carolina state line.
7
STREAM CHARACTERISTICS
Gum Swamp Creek is a single channel stream with a bankfull width of approximately 40 ft (12 m) at the
existing bridge. Approximately 50 ft (15 m) downstream of the bridge an abandoned oxbow drains back
into the main channel. Pool depths at the bank-full stage within the channel ranges from 3 to 5 ft (1.0 to
1.6 m). No rooted aquatic vegetation was apparent in the channel, but organic debris (i.e. branches) was
apparent. Gum Swamp 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 Gum
Swamp Creek is an "E" channel (Rosgen 1996). This designation indicates a stream which occurs on
"gentle slopes in broad riverine or lacustrine valleys and river deltas" (Rosgen 1996). The "E" stream type
is a riffle/pool system that exhibits low to moderate sinuosity.
BEST USAGE CLASSIFICATIONS AND WATER QUALITY
The State of North Carolina assigns surface waters a best usage classification based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin. Gum Swamp Creek,
from US 74 downstream through the project study area to the North Carolina/South Carolina state line, has
a best usage classification of B-SW (DEM 1993, DENR 1999). The B designation indicates waters used
primarily for recreation. These waters also 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 or incidental basis. The SW designation is used for swamp waters
characterized by low velocities, low pH, low dissolved oxygen levels, and high organic content. 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 stormwater discharge of pollution
are required.
No Outstanding Resource Waters (OR", WS 1, or WS-II Waters occur within 3.0 miles (4.8 km) upstream
or downstream of the project study area. In 1991, what was then the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management (DEM) (now the Division of Water Quality), stated that portions of Gum
Swamp Creek directly above the project study area may qualify as High Quality Waters based on the
excellent bioclassification ratings at the US 15/401 site, 0.65 miles (1.1 km) upstream of the project study
area (DEM 1993). Gum Swamp 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 are two
permitted point source dischargers located on Gum Swamp Creek: 1) Springs Industries in Springfield
(NPDES NC0005754), located approximately 6.0 miles (9.7 km) upstream of the project study area, has a
permitted discharge of 0.03 million gallons per day (MGD) (113.6 kiloliters per day) (DEM 1999); and 2)
Laurel Hill Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) (NPDES NC0005479), located approximately 8.0 miles
(12.9 km) upstream of the. project study area, has a permitted discharge of 0.3 MGD (1,136 kiloliters per
day) (DEM 1999). This NPDES permit number was previously assigned to Fieldcrest Mills Plant at Laurel
Hill (DEM 1989). This plant is no longer in operation.
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
8
for the Lumber River Basin (DEM 1993). DWQ assigns bioclassifications to streams and portions of
streams based on the species richness and overall biomass, which are considered to be reflections of
water quality. Four benthic macroinvertebrate sample sites are located on Gum Swamp Creek. One
sample site is located 0.65 miles (1.1 km) upstream of the project study area at US 151401. This station
received a bioclassification of Excellent in 4991 and a bioclassifcation of Good in 1996 (DENR 1999). The
other sample sites are located upstream of the project study area (DEM 1993). Two of these sites are
associated with the discharge for the abandoned Fieldcrest Mills Plant at Laurel Hill, located 8.0 miles (13
km) upstream at SR 1319. The other sample site is located 10 miles (16 km) upstream at SR 1323.
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. No NCIBI
samples are reported for Gum Swamp Creek or its tributaries (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 Gum Swamp Creek. There is potential
for the remaining concrete components of the superstructure to be dropped into Gum Swamp Creek during
demolition and removal. The maximum temporary fill associated with the removal is approximately
60 cubic yards (46 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), including
implementation of standard erosion and sedimentation control measures and avoidance of using wetlands
as staging areas, can minimize impacts during construction.
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
bridge(s) 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 Gum Swamp 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.
9
BIOTIC RESOURCES
PLANT COMMUNITIES
Three plant communities were identified within the project study area: coastal plain small stream swamp,
pine forest, 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 Gum Swamp 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 tree
species and a moderate subcanopy. The canopy is dominated by black gum (Nyssa spp.), water oak
(Quercus nigra), pond cypress (Taxodium ascendens), and bald cypress (Taxodium distichum).
Subcanopy tree species include sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), red mulberry (Mores rubra), red maple
(Acer rubrum), and black gum. In dryer areas the herbaceous layer consists of sweet pepperbush (Clethre
alnifolia), Virginia willow (Itea virginica), netted chain-fem (Woodwardia areolata), greenbrier (Smilax
rotundifolia), cinnamon fem (Osmunda cinnamomea), royal fem (Osmunda regalis) and giant cane
(Arundinaria gigantea). In wetter areas the herbaceous layer is sparse and consists of arrow arum
(Peltandre virginica) and netted chain-fem.
Pine Forest - The pine forest community is dominated by a number of pine plantations that have been
allowed to naturalize in the absence of fire and timber harvesting. Wetter areas more closely resemble
mesic pine flatwoods community and dryer areas more closely resemble pine/scrub oak forest community.
Hardwoods such as blackjack oak (Quercus marilandica) and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) are
moderate to heavy in the understory and are encroaching into the canopy. This plant community is
dominated by a canopy composed of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). In wetter areas the understory is
dominated by water oak (Quercus nigra), red maple, sweetgum, red bay (Persea palustris), sweet gallberry
(Ilex coriacea), sweet pepperbush, fetter bush (Lyonia lucida) and cinnamon fem. Drier areas tend to be
dominated by blackjack oak, blue jack oak (Quercus incana), mockemut hickory (Carya tomentosa),
sassafras (Sassafras albidium), longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), wild grape (Nibs rotundifolia) and bracken
fem (Pteridium aquilinum).
Maintained/Disturbed Areas - The maintained/disturbed areas include roadsides, maintained residential
yards, and power line right-of-way and areas where other human related activities dominate. Roadsides
and power line right of way are maintained by either mowing or herbicide. -Residential yards contain
ornamental trees, shrubs and grasses intermixed with loblolly pines, longleaf pines, various scrub oaks,
sassafras, and flowering dogwood (Comus florida).
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.
10
TABLE 2
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO PLANT COMMUNITIES
ESTIMATED IMPACTS

PLANT COMMUNITY Alternate A
Recommended Alternate B
Impacts Impacts Temp. Detour Impacts
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
Pine Forest
Maintained/Disturbed 0.14 ac (0.06 ha)
0.29 ac (0.12 ha)
1.27 ac 0.51 ha 0.14 ac (0.06 ha)
0.29 ac (0.12 ha)
1.27 ac 0.51 ha 0.31 ac (0.12 ha)
0.14 ac (0.06 ha)
0.01 ac 0.004 ha
Total: 1.70 ac (0.69 ha) 1.70 ac (0.69 ha) 0.46 ac (0.18 ha)
TOTAL FOR ALT: 1.70 ac (0.69 ha) 2.16 ac (0.87 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 in 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
and roadway approach segments. Permanent community impacts for Alternate A and B are 1.70 ac
(0.69 ha), which includes 0.43 ac (0.17 ha) of impacts to forested natural plant communities. Alternate B
has an additional 0.45 ac (0.18 ha) of impacts to natural forested communities associated with the
temporary on-site detour.
WILDLIFE
The project study area was visually surveyed for signs of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. Sprawling
development, busy highways, and residential areas surround Gum Swamp Creek, and large intact forested
areas are sparse. Bottomland swamps along streams such as Gum Swamp Creek provide cover and food
that allows animals to migrate between more optimal habitats. Wildlife species expected to occur within
the project study area are those adapted to ecotones between the maintained roadsides and natural forest
and those using the project study area as a travel corridor.
Terrestrial
Many 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), northern cardinal
(Cardinalis cardinalis), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), and downy
woodpecker (Picoides pubescens). Species that commonly occur in wet woodlands and surrounding pine
forest include Carolina chickadee (Paris carolinensis), bluegray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea), Acadian
flycatcher (Empidonax virescens), prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria ckrea), barred owl (Strix varia),
brown-headed nuthatch (Sitta pusilla), eastern wood peewee (Contopus .virens), downy woodpecker
(Picoides pubescens), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), and red shouldered hawk (Buteo
lineatus). Bottomland swamp communities also provide breeding habitat for migratory birds such as
northern parula (Parula americana) and white-eyed vireo (Vireo griseus).
11
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).
Terrestrial reptiles observed within the project study area include Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis) and
five-lined skink (Eumeces sp.). Other reptiles expected include 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 auriculatus), green tree frog- (Hyla cinerea), spring pepper
(Hyla crucifer), southern cricket frog (Acris gryllus), and southern leopard frog (Rana utricularia).
Aquatic
Limited kick-netting, seining, dip-netting, electrofishing, and visual observation of stream banks and
channel within the project study area, were conducted in Gum Swamp Creek.
Fish species documented in the segment of Gum Swamp Creek within the project study area are redfin
pickerel (Esox americanus), yellow bullhead (Ameiurus natalis), pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus),
redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), and American eel (Anguilla rostrata). Other fish species expected to
be present include chain pickerel (Esox niger), bowfin (Amia calva), eastern mudminnow (Umbra
pygmaea), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), various sunfish (Lepomis spp.), 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 Gum Swamp Creek revealed no
evidence of freshwater mussels. Kick-net surveys and limited bottom sampling conducted within the
channel of Gum Swamp Creek produced few aquatic macroinvertebrates.
Benthic invertebrates collected within Gum Swamp Creek were identified to Order and include mayflies
(Ephemeroptera), dragonflies (Odonota), and crayfish (Decapoda). Surveys conducted by DWQ in 1991
provide a more complete list of species and their abundance at the benthic monitoring station at US 15-401
approximately 0.65 miles (1.1 km) upstream from the project study area (DENR 1999).
One aquatic reptile, the spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata), was observed within the project study area.
Other species expected to occur within the project study area include redbelly water snake (Nerodia
erythrogaster), cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorous), and snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina).
One aquatic amphibian species, the pickerel frog (Rana palustris), was observed within the project study
area. Other species expected to occur within the project study area include eastern newt (Notophthalmus
viridescens), lesser siren (Siren intermedia), greater siren (Siren lacertina), two-toed amphiuma
(Amphiuma means), and bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana).
12
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO WILDLIFE
Due to the lack of, or limited, infringement on natural communities, the proposed bridge replacement 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 the system to maintain regular flow and stream
integrity.
SPECIAL TOPICS
WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
Surface waters within the embankments of Gum Swamp 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
Gum Swamp 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 which correspond to the cypress/gum swamp and the wet mixed pine-
hardwood forest.
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 wet mixed pine-hardwood forest exhibits characteristics of palustrine forested, broad-leaved/needle-
leaved evergreen, saturated wetlands (PF01/48). Wetland hydrology in this community is maintained
primarily from groundwater and overland flow and runoff from adjacent uplands. Hydric soils are saturated
within 1.0 ft (0.30 m) of the surface for at least 5 percent of the growing season. The canopy is dominated
by loblolly pine and water oak. The understory consists of red bay, sweet gallberry, sweet pepperbush,
and fetter-bush.
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 Gum Swamp Creek are included in this
table.
13
TABLE 3
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS AND SURFACE WATERS
ESTIMATED IMPACTS
JURISDICTIONAL AREAS Alternate A
Recommended Alternate B
Impacts Impacts Temp. Detour Impacts
R2UB2Hx
PF06C
PFO1/4B 0.11 ac (0.04 ha)
0.05 ac (0.02 ha)
0.11 ac 0.04 ha 0.11 ac (0.04 ha)
0.05 ac (0.02 ha)
0.11 ac 0.04 ha 0.13 ac (0.05 ha)
0.30 ac (0.12 ha)
0.00 ac 0.00 ha
Total: 0.27 ac 0.11 ha 0.27 ac 0.11 ha 0.43 ac 0.17 ha
TOTALS FOR ALT: 0.27 ac 0.11 ha 0.70 ac 0.28 ha
Stream Channel Impacts 80 lin. ft 24 m 80 lin. ft 24 m) I 50 lin. ft 15 m
TOTALS FOR ALT: 80 lin. ft 24 m 130 lin. ft 39 m
* Note: Temporary detour impacts are based on the portion of the onsite detour not included in the
construction limits for the permanent structure.
Alternate A (Recommended) contains the lesser amount of open water (R2UB2Hx), approximately 0.11 ac
(0.04 ha), associated with 80 linear feet (24 m) of Gum Swamp Creek (main channel). Alternate B
contains approximately 0.24 ac (0.09 ha) of open water associated with approximately 130 linear feet
(39 m) of Gum Swamp Creek, of which 0.13 ac (0.05 ha) and 50 linear feet (15 m) of Gum Swamp Creek
are temporary impacts associated with the temporary detour. Approximately 0.01 ac (0.004 ha) of the
temporary impact to open waters would be the result of fill required for the on-site detour; however, the fill
would be removed according to NCDOT guidelines.
Both Alternates A and B impact 0.11 ac (0.04 ha) of the palustrine forested, broad-leaved/needle-leaved
evergreen, saturated (PF01/4B) wetlands found in the wet mixed pine-hardwood forest community.
Both alternatives also impact the cypress/gum swamp located south of SR 1614. This area exhibits
characteristics of a palustrine forest, broad-leaved and needle leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded
wetlands (PF06C). Alternate A impacts 0.05 ac (0.02 ha) of this wetland. Alternate B also impacts
0.05 ac (0.02 ha) of this wetland and the temporary detour associated with Alternate B may impact an
additional 0.30 ac (0.12 ha) of this wetland. The temporary detour would require temporary fill in 0.12 ac
(0.05 ha) of PF06C wetlands; however, the fill would 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) No. 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 No. 23. However, use of this permit will require written notice to DWQ. In the event
that NWP No. 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.
14
MITIGATION EVALUATION
Avoidance - Due to the extent of wetlands and surface waters within the project study area, avoidance of
impacts is not possible. Each alternate 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.
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 list dated
February 27, 2001):
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
15
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.
American alligator is listed as threatened based on the similarity in appearance to other federally-
listed crocodilians. This species is not biologically endangered or threatened and is not subject to
Section 7 consultation. Potential habitat for American alligator exists within the project study area.
Construction activities have the potential to 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 215 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. palustds), slash (P. ellioth), and pond (P. serotina) 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
ideal nesting and foraging sites for this woodpecker. Development of a thick understory may result in
abandonment of cavity trees.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT (Alternate A - Recommended)
UNRESOLVED (Alternate B)
No evidence of Red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) (birds or cavities) was found in the project
study area. There is documentation of three inactive RCW cavities approximately 0.8 miles (1.3
km) northeast of the project study area near SR 1614 in an old growth longleaf pine stand. The
cavities have been inactive since 1981 and no change in status or additional active cavities have
been reported to NHP since the last records. Residential yards in the project study area contain a
few large pine trees, but most are small regeneration pines and none contain RCW cavities. The
residential pines and pine forest may be considered potential foraging habitat. A Biological
Conclusion of "No Effect" can be reached for Alternate A since no pines will be removed. Since
Alternate B may clear pines of suitable age to be considered potential foraging habitat, a Biological
Conclusion of "Unresolved" is required unless a survey is conducted to show whether RCWs nest
within 0.5 miles (0.8 km) of the affected area. Since Alternate A is recommended, no RCW survey
is planned for Alternate B.
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
16
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 is too dense to support a herbaceous layer that could include Canby's dropwort. Open
roadsides and the adjacent power line right-of-way present 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 (0.61 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 inch (7-10 mm) wide, broadest at the base, and have three prominent principal veins
(Godfrey and Wooten 1981). Five4obed yellow flowers, approximately 0.6 inch (15 mm) across, are
produced on a loose terminal raceme 1-4 inches (25-100 mm) long (Godfrey and Wooten 1981). Rough-
leaved loosestrife is reported to flower from late May through June (FINS 1994). 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,
leading to eventual local extirpation (FWS 1994). 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 and the adjacent
power line right-of-way present 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.
17
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 bome 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 loamy
swales (Weakley 1993). It may be found 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. Canopy cover in forested areas of the
project study area is too dense to support an herbaceous layer that could include Michaux's
sumac. Open roadsides and the adjacent power line right-of-way present in the project study area
are extensively maintained through mowing and the application of herbicides. No Michaux's
sumac was observed during the site visit.
American chaffseed - American chaffseed is a perennial root-parasitic herb that stands 1-2 ft (0.30 -
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 chaffseed.
Open roadsides and the adjacent power line right-of-way present 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 American chaffseed or its associates.
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 (see Table 5).
18
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 subcodacea 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 vema Y T
Wavyleaf wild quinine Parthenium radfordii Y W1
White wicky Kalmia cuneata Y E-SC
Savanna cam to us Cam o us carolinae N C
* E-Endangered, T-Threatened, SC- Special Concern, C -Candidate, W - Watch List, P - Proposed,
SR- Significantly Rare.
NHP files document three occurrences of FSC species within 3.0 miles (4.8 km) of the project study area.
Spring-flowering goldenrod (Solidago vema) (T) has been documented 0.65 miles (1.1 km) upstream of the
project study area, where US 15-401 crosses Gum Swamp Creek. Habitat for this species consists of
mesic to moist pinelands and pocosin ecotones. Mesic pine flatwoods are found within the project study
area; therefore, it is possible that spring-flowering goldenrod could be found on site. A population of
awned meadowbeauty has been documented 2.6 miles (4.2 km) southwest of the project study area. A
population of sandhills milkvetch has been documented 2.8 miles (4.5 km) northeast of the project study
area. No FSC were identified during the site visit.
STATE PROTECTED SPECIES
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state list as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or
Special Concern (SC) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S.
113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S.106-202 et seq.).
NHP records indicate the occurrences of five state-listed species within 3.0 miles (4.8 km) of the project
study area. A Carolina bay, located 2.6 miles (4.2 km) southwest of the project study area off of SR 1622,
includes populations of shrubby seedbox (Ludwigia suffruticosa) (SR), Bosc's bluet (Oldenlandia boscii)
(SR), and limesink dog fennel (Eupatorium leptophyllum) (C). Habitat for these species in the form of
Carolina bays or limesink ponds is not found in the project study area.
19
The pinewoods darter (Etheostoma mariae) (SC) has been documented in Gum Swamp Creek in 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 Natural 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
Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 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 have been conducted for this project.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Replacement of Bridge No. 59 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.
20
No publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or 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 as a result of 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 1614. The Scotland County Emergency Services Department was contacted and
indicated 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 should have no impact to 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. 59.
21
IX.
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 -79/31. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Tech. Rpt. Y-
87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 100 pp.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) 1999. Biological Assessment Unit.
hftp://www.esb.enr.stae.nc.usBAUwww/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.
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.
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. 91 pp.
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, GA. 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.
22
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. Pamell, 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. Pamell. 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.
23
FIGURES

I

B-35 16 ?D -

`J
11 5
a
1271 1614\

M hur
Cro ads

Q

s . 1614
'
?
0 ?

t
5
? `< 166
?
\
40

1

PROJECT LOCATION
SCOTLAND
COUNTY SCALE IN MILES
1 0 1
i NOR-
FIGURE I
North Carolina Department of AREA LOCATION MAP
Transportation BRIDGE N 0. 59 O N S R 16 14
Project Development & Environmental
Analysis Branch OVER GUM SWAMP CREEK
SCOTLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP PROJECT B-3516
SR 614 LOOKING WEST AT BRIDGE #59 FIGURE 2
SR 1614 LOOKING EAST AT BRIDGE #59
BRIDGE #59 LOOKING WEST (DOWNSTREAM SIDE) FIGURE 3
BRIDGE #59 LOOKING EAST (DOWNSTREAM SIDE)
o I ±!
bK.
?
D I

f
I
I ? s
'>
.
n

m
m
m
-u C-2 ? -+ m

Z
° 7 o o -M
°
-

-
°
C11
CI CA
rrn
a

?
a CA
m
l
m
I I °o
C
3 cm-i o --4 c C= + ' M
o
rn
=E
Cl
m
m
a
p

Ul ° a
m L
`

C)
G?

?
"?
m Lf)

C:l

C

r, {

I I

Q

Z
31-
(N, S

CA Z Ul r
m 03 T O Lam; ?
m Q Q I`' _
i ? ?
Q ,I
`

m ? D

? ?I r O O ?
u u u u
? p?D
Q'i lJ1 N
O
C1.1
_ ?
r
0
R'i o co
? -A o0
0o O °j v W p
? ? Cn1 ? LO
r7l
Z
d W
C a i-9

o c o QQ
w N
w Q'i
p o y
!2?
?
J BEGIN TEMP B
APPRDX STA 1 RIDGE
3*91
l
sf

NU tt
0
END TEMP BRIDGE
b
?
? O

O
m m2 m
mew
vom
quF
°_,° 00 Z
aq
m?
r
?
c
,n v
?cxn
ww?

? ?I r
O O
? N N m
??

zt-20
W
-4 W x Q V I L'" ?a? TO
W
'1
70? O ?„!.?
_ ? Q ill q4
kti
ry
a T T
V "I
? ?
\ ? 1 i
?

y x
C41o C!7 O) C

171
G)
C
X
.p

<v 8`PVC `"? 1
?o

?o fl

? W A
W N
m r r
?ym
N O
o
a m

0
oZ
w
?m
m
v
?r
mm
s
z
mq y
T
N
a r
A

N rn

Z

'CrT1?ll N
3° 4 N i
i
a n ' '
Q Q
n
m A
m W N
?r
O
?r
co?
y n O
b o
by??
0
ba ? y
0
o z
O
m ?
z me
? w y A
j + 2
m C
[ A
? n
w =+
f ?
o s -a
m y,
w O
fi z C
z
v'
m
C ? C
n `^
_+ n
li T ` 15
? m
V+ F

rn rn
rn J
A 1
T
rl)

C
PROJECT LOCATION
0
/ar-N North Carolina Department of
Transportation
r ---- OFF-SITE DETOUR ROUTE
lip Project Development & Environmental
Analysis Branch
FIGURE 5
SCC?TM SCALE IN MILES

4
D
r
W
M
v
m
n
70
O
N
N
N
m
n
O
Z
w m ..
O o w
3 3
?o
?o
A 3°
p w
c
cD
zo
W ? m
70
u
O O -
N
N
N 1
A ?N
30
Z
G)
C
m
CY)
-ffl
3
cn???1?1\°n- u °
CZ manic rnconi
rnC??y?ZRtOZ
rrl
C) r-n (,n °

m y No z

Cl) ?rooC)(Z
?cs
E
09 'a

o ?
c?
0
30
a
O
c
o?
M D o
Z O
-4 m o
D
O
Io
O
N
N
a
T
_Q
O
Z COO
>N,-
a?
.k D 3 3
-rf-)
a
N
O
N ?

3 C2

r-

O
? D

D

?m
z0

S ------ ------ ----------
fl
,

O
W N
N o 3 °
N
m

? C?
Z C7
C3 O
C -

W
O
D 3 3
ti
IY
.k
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 I 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:
1. 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.
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
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:

or- RECF??
4UG
8 ?
M
PP G
0 F. V41
LYS1S d?
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,
Dr. Garland B. Pardue
6 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 NAMR. 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) raf:nesquii 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 Cylindroc'olea 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
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Division
August 2, 2000
C
a
ti.
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
XXVIL
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 M 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.
3
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
oyd?
dyr W
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
Deputy State Hist,?ic Preservation Officer
Re: Replace Bridge No. 59 on SR 1614 over Gum Swamp Creek,
Scotland County, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1614(2), State
Project No. 8.2590601, TIP Project B-351e, ER 01-7005
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 919/733-4763.
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 # VD '3JI (0 Federal Aid #5??'t - UILA C2- County SCO"OMA
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description
Ve-Ekace- giricLng! QS. -99 an SR 1 over GLE vua rn
On ?p • 15 DO , 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; z??aaeeting
? Historic atblutectural` resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
?? there are no properties over. fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over 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
_Iz there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
M cu? P '1 -av
Representative, NCD T Date
X, t z X,
FHwA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
,s
i /
RP acPntativP P() Date
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.