19951004 Ver 1_Complete File_19950918

.1?

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION , ,, ,
ARRETT R.
JAMEs B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS G? J
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
September 13, 1995
Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Mr. G. Wayne Wright
Dear Sir:
?)EOEIVED
g?P ? ? 1995
ENV IRONME?j A^ SCIENCES
Subject: Robeson County - Replacement of Br`id o. o 11 over Raft
Swamp; State Project No. 8.146190 rj! P . No. B-2860
Attached for your information is ap?i of the p oject planning report
for the subject projectCwedo Highway Administration 771.115(b). Therefore, but propose to p
roceed 330 Appendix A (B-23) iThe provisions of Section 330.4
be followed in the construction
ode s being proce ed by the Federal
egorical Exclusio " in accordance with 23 CFR
t anticipate r esting an Individual Permit
ationw1 ermit in accordance with 33 CFR
r 22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers.
and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will
of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2745 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE
document to the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, for their review.

..
September 13,°1995
f Page 2
If you have any questions, please call Cyndi Bell at [phone],
Extension 306.
Sincere.
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/tp
Attachment
cc: David Franklin, COE, Wilmington Field Office
John Dorney, DEHNR, DEM
John Parker, DEHNR, DCM/Permit Coordinator
Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development Branch
Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design
A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics
John L. Smith, Jr., P. E., Structure Design
Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design
W. F. Rosser, P. E., Division ,6 Engineer
Stacy Baldwin, Planning & Environmental

NC 211
Bridge No. 45 Over Raft Swamp
Robeson County
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-211(1)
State Project 8.1461901
T.I.P. No. B-2860
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
D / tai Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
r Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
OS D 9.
DATE f' op, Nicholas L. Graf, PE
Division Administrator, FHWA

NC 211
Bridge No. 45 Over Raft Swamp
Robeson County
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-211(1)
State Project 8.1461901
T.I.P. No. B-2860
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
July 1995
Documentation Prepared By:
MA Engineering Consultants, Inc.
7 Z/- ?S
Shihchen (David) Fuh, Ph.D, PE
Project Manager
for North Carolina Department of Transportation
.A. Bisset t, Jr., PE, Unit Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
Jaflu U-
Stacy Y. Baldwin/
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
,?.?'??SS DO`?y9
SEAS
19732
?s'.y??.eI f41A ?
NC 211
Bridge No. 45 Over Raft Swamp
Robeson County
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-211(1)
State Project 8.1461901
T.I.P. No. B-2860
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
Fill material from the temporary detour within the floodplain will be removed and the area restored,
to the extent reasonably possible, to promote regeneration of the pre-construction conditions.
A North Carolina Geodetic Survey (NCGS) bench mark (ROB 21 1989) is located in the northeast
concrete wingwall of the bridge with an elevation of (NGVD 29) 42.717 meters (140 feet). North
Carolina Geodetic Surveys will be contacted before the monument is disturbed.
All standard procedures and measures, including Best Management Practices, will be implemented
to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
NC 211
Bridge No. 45 Over Raft Swamp
Robeson County
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-211(1)
State Project 8.1461901
T.I.P. No. B-2860
Bridge No. 45 is included in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location is shown
in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a
Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
For the Summary of Environmental Commitments, see page i.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 45 will be replaced at the existing location as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure 2. The
recommended replacement structure consists of a bridge 68 meters (223 feet) long and 9.2 meters
(30 feet) wide. This structure will provide two 3.6-meter (12-foot) travel lanes with 1.0-meter (3-
foot) shoulders on each side.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing grade at this
location.
The existing roadway will be widened to a 7.2-meter (24-foot) pavement width, -to provide two 3.6-
meter (12-foot) travel lanes, and 2.4-meter (8-foot) shoulders, of which 0.6 meters (2 feet) will be
paved, on each side throughout the project limits.
A temporary on-site detour will be used to maintain traffic during the construction period.
Estimated cost, based on current prices, is $1,070,700. The estimated cost.of the project, as shown
in the 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program, is $628,000 ($600,000-construction;
$28,000-right-of-way).
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located in the central portion of Robeson County, approximately 8 kilometers (5 miles)
east of Lumberton, North Carolina (see Figure 1). The area is rural residential and woodlands in
nature.
NC 211 is classified as a rural major collector in the Statewide Functional Classification System and
is a Federal-Aid Highway. The route is not a designated bicycle route.
In the vicinity of the bridge, NC 211 has a 6.6-meter (22-foot) pavement width with 1.8-meter (6-
foot) shoulders (see Figures 3 and 4). The roadway grade is relatively flat through the project area.
The existing bridge is located on tangent which extends approximately 300 meters (1000 feet) east
and 400 meters (1300 feet) west from the structure. The roadway is situated approximately 4.6
meters (15 feet) above the stream bed..
The current traffic volume of 4050 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to 7250 VPD by
the year 2018. The projected volume includes 2% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 3% dual-
tired vehicles (DT). The posted speed limit is 90 kilometers per hour (55 miles per hour) in the
project area.
Bridge No. 45 is a thirteen-span structure that consists of a reinforced concrete deck on timber joists.
The substructure consists of reinforced concrete caps on timber piles. The existing bridge (see Figure
3) was constructed in 1954.
The overall length of the structure is 68 meters (223 feet). The clear roadway width is 8.6 meters
(28.2 feet). The posted weight limit on this bridge is 15 metric tons (16 tons) for single vehicles and
18 metric tons (20 tons) for TTST's.
Bridge No. 45 has a sufficiency rating of 27.5, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure. The
existing bridge is considered structurally deficient.
There are no utilities attached to the existing structure. However, overhead power lines parallel the
existing bridge on the western side of the roadway throughout the project area. Utility impacts are
anticipated to be low.
Four accidents, resulting in one fatality and three injuries, have been reported in the vicinity of Bridge
No. 45 during the period from April 1991 to March 1994. Three of the accidents were single vehicle
incidents that were the result of the vehicle loosing control and striking fixed objects. One of the
incidents was a double vehicle accident that was the result of one vehicle crossing the center line and
both vehicles striking fixed objects off of the road. None of the accidents can be attributed to
insufficient clear roadway width on the existing structure.
There is no school bus traffic crossing this bridge.
2
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 45 were studied. Each alternative consists of a bridge 68
meters (223 feet) long and 9.2 meters (30 feet) wide. Typical sections of the approach roadway and
structure are included as Figures 4 and 5.
The alternatives studied are shown on Figure 2 and are as follows:
Alternative 1 (Recommended) - involves replacement of the structure along the existing roadway
alignment. Improvements to the approach roadways will be required for approximately 60 meters
(200 feet) in each direction from the bridge. A temporary on-site detour will be provided during the
construction period north (upstream) of the existing structure. The temporary detour will consist of
a bridge 26 meters (85 feet) long and 7.2 meters (24 feet) wide, located about 12 meters (40 feet)
north of the existing structure. The design speed for this alternative is 100 kilometers per hour (60
miles per hour). Alternative 1 is recommended because it maintains the existing horizontal alignment,
which is superior to the proposed alignment for Alternative 2. Additionally, Alternative 1 has less
impact on the wetland environment due to the additional roadway approach work for Alternative 2.
Alternative 2 - involves replacement of the bridge at a new location immediately north of the existing
structure. Modifications to the alignment on the bridge approaches include approximately 135 meters
(450 feet) to the east and 135 meters (450 feet) to the west. The design speed of this alternative is
100 kilometers per hour (60 miles per hour). The existing structure will serve as an on-site detour
during the construction period. This alternative is not recommended because of the reverse
horizontal curves that will be required to tie into the existing roadway at each end of the project.
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not acceptable
due to the traffic service provided by NC 211.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation Division 6 concurs that traffic be maintained on-
site instead of closing the road during construction because of the traffic volumes using NC 211 and
the excessive length of additional travel that will be required with an off-site detour.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
3
V. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the two alternatives are as follows:
(Recommended) Alternative 2
Alternative 1
Structure $ 529,900 $ 529,900
Roadway Approaches 92,900 256,400
Detour Structure and Approaches 241,500 0
Structural Removal 48,700 48,700
Engineering and Contingencies 137,000 140,000
Right-of-Way/Construction Easements/Utilities 20,700 25,000
Total $ 1,070,700 $1,000,000
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 45 will be replaced at its existing location, as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure 2, with a
new structure having a length of approximately 68 meters (223 feet). Improvements to the existing
approaches will be necessary for a distance of about 60 meters (200 feet) in each direction from the
bridge. The Division Engineer concurs with this recommended alternative.
A 7.2-meter (24-foot) pavement width with 2.4-meter (8-foot) shoulders, of which 0.6 meters (2 feet)
will be paved, on each side will be provided on the approaches (see Figure 4). A 9.2-meter (30-foot)
clear width is recommended on the replacement structure in accordance with the current North
Carolina Department of Transportation Bridge Policy. NC 211 is classified as a rural major collector;
therefore, criteria for a rural major collector was used for the bridge replacement. This will provide
a 7.2-meter (24-foot) travelway with 1.0-meter (3-foot) shoulders across the structure. The design
speed is 100 kilometers per hour (60 miles per hour).
During the construction period, maintenance of traffic on-site with a temporary detour is necessary.
Otherwise, traffic will have to be detoured along existing secondary roads. This detour route is
considered unacceptable due to traffic volumes using NC 211 and the excessive length of additional
travel required.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, the new structure is recommended to have a length of
approximately 68 meters (223 feet). The bridge will have a 0.3% minimum slope in order to facilitate
drainage. The elevation of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing bridge
so that there will be no increase to the existing 100-year floodplain elevation. The length and height
of the new structure may be increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as
determined by further hydrologic studies.
4
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
A biologist visited the project site on October 21, 1994 to verify documented information and gather
field data for a thorough assessment of potential impacts that could be incurred by a proposed bridge
replacement project.
The investigation examined the vegetation surrounding the highway bridge in order to: 1) search for
State and federally protected plants and animal species; 2) identify unique or prime-quality
communities; 3) describe the current vegetation and wildlife habitats; 4) identify wetlands; and 5)
provide information to assess (and minimize adverse) environmental effects of the proposed bridge
replacement.
Biotic Communities
Plant Communities
Three distinct plant community types occur within the immediate area of the proposed project. A
Cypress-Gum Swamp community grades into a Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest and are
included below as floodplain hardwood forest. Specific communities exhibited slight variation
dependent upon location and physical characteristics of the site (soils, topography, human uses, etc.).
Communities are described below.
Floodplain Hardwood Forest:
The Floodplain Hardwood Wetland Forest (Cypress-Gum Swamp, blackwater subtype grades into
Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods, blackwater subtype) is on level areas adjacent to NC 211 and
is a composed primarily of hardwoods. Much of this area is standing water. The canopy adjacent
to Raft Swamp is composed of bald cypress (Tam&um distichum) and tupelo gum (Nyssa aquatica).
Other canopy species include sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), water
oak (Ouercus nigra), and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). Sub-canopy trees include the canopy
species plus boxelder (Acer negundo) and American holly (Ilex opaca). The shrub/sapling layer is
composed of sweetgum, raspberry (Rubus spp.), American holly, and blueberry (Vaccinium spp.).
The vine/herb/grass layer is composed of cane (Arundinaria gigantea), sensitive fern (Onoclea
sensibilis), grape (Vitis spp.), and greenbrier (Smilax spp.).
Urban/Disturbed:
This community classification includes disturbed bridge and roadside margins, and a residential area
with a manicured lawn in the vicinity of the project. This area is characterized primarily by invasive
vines, grasses and herbs including: Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), greenbrier, clover (Trifolium spp.), common yarrow (Achillea
millefolium), dandelion (Taraxacum off cinale), henbit (Lamium amplezicaule), multiflora rose (Rosa
multiflora), Carolina geranium (Geranium carolinianum), and fescue grass (Festuca spp.). The
residential area has a sparse canopy of longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) and white oak (Quercus alba).
Wildlife (General)
Terrestrial:
The project area consists of primarily roadside urban/disturbed, residential, and forested areas. The
forested areas provide cover and protection for many indigenous wildlife species nearby the project
area. The forested areas adjacent to Raft Swamp and associated ecotones serve as valuable habitat.
The forest bordering Raft Swamp has all the necessary components (food, water, protective cover)
for mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians.
Sighting or evidence (tracks, scat, burrows, nests, etc.) were noted for the following species of
mammal, the Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana). Mammals likely to inhabit the area include
eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus) and raccoon (Procyon lotor).
The observed bird species are typical of rural setting where a patchwork of habitat types are available.
Species encountered in the forested areas nearby Raft Swamp include slate-colored junco (Junco
hyemalis) and common crow (Corims brachyrhynchos).
Reptiles and amphibians typical of these communities include the eastern garter snake (Thamnophis
sirtalis), Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis), and eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina).
Aquatic:
Raft Swamp supports aquatic invertebrates and several species of fish for recreational fishing. Game
species present are redfin pickerel (Esox americamis), redhorse sucker (Moxostoma spp. ), and sunfish
(Lepomis spp.).
The swamp and adjacent banks also provide suitable benthic and riparian habitat for amphibians and
aquatic reptiles such as the eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), northern dusky salamander
(Desmognathus fiscus), frogs (Rana spp.), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), and rat snake
(Elaphe obsoleta).
Physical Resources
Soil
Robeson County is located within the Middle Coastal Plain and has gently undulating, plateau-like,
seaward sloping uplands and gentle to steep valley slopes. Elevations in the immediate project area
range from 42.6 meters (140 feet) along the swamp bottom to 45.7 meters (150 feet) along the
roadside.
6
The parent materials of the soils of Robeson County are unconsolidated rock material, sand and silt,
and clay that make up the sediments of the Middle Coastal Plain. Local changes in subsurface
geology are common, and large, homogeneous masses of a single rock type are rare.
Soils in the project vicinity are Johnson soils, Lumbee sandy loam, and Johns sandy loam. Johnson
soils and Lumbee sandy loam soils are very poorly drained soils found on floodplains. Johnson and
Lumbee sandy loam soils have map units that are hydric soils or have hydric soils as a major
component. Johns sandy loam soils have map units with inclusions of hydric soils or wet spots.
Water
Bridge No. 45 crosses Raft Swamp approximately 32 kilometers (20 miles) downstream from its
origin west of the project area near Raeford, North Carolina. Raft Swamp drains east into the
Lumber River. Raft Swamp is part of the Lumber River Basin.
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin (NCDNRCD 1993).
Raft Swamp is Class WS-IV Sw, indicating waters protected as water supplies which are generally
in moderately to highly developed watersheds and a supplemental classification for swamp waters;
waters which have low velocities and other natural characteristics which are different from adjacent
streams.
No High Quality Waters (HQW), Anadromous Fish Spawning Areas, Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW), WS I or WS II Waters occur within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of the project site.
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) report one discharger (Red Springs WWTP) within 6.4 kilometers (4
miles) upstream of the proposed crossing.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long term trends in water
quality at fixed monitoring sites by the sampling for benthic macroinvertebrates. Certain organisms
are sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality. Good water quality is associated with high taxa
richness (the number of different types of organisms) and the presence of many intolerant species.
Water quality degradation gradually eliminates the more sensitive species and leads to a community
structure quite different from that in an unstressed waterbody.
Raft Swamp was sampled (January 1988) by BMAN at the project crossing and given a
bioclassification rating of Good.
Table 1 describes the stream characteristics of Raft Swamp observed in the vicinity of the proposed
bridge replacement project.
7
TABLE 1
Stream Characteristics and Ecolosical Classifications
Characteristic Description
Substrate Grey muck
Current Flow Moderate
Channel Width 15.2 meters (50 feet)
Water Depth 0.91 meters (3 feet) to 1.2 meters (4 feet)
Water Color Black
Water Odor None
Aquatic Vegetation None
Adjacent Vegetation Bald cypress, tupelo gum, sweetgum, red maple,
water oak, green ash
Wetlands Palustrine Forested
Jurisdictional Topics
Wetlands
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States" as defined
in Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 328.3, in accordance with provisions of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters and wetlands will be impacted by
project construction. Approximately 0.30 hectares (0.76 acres) of Palustrine forested deciduous
wetlands (see Cowardin et al. 1979) will be impacted (filled) by construction of the recommended
alternative. Field observations indicated wetlands were associated with low-lying land adjacent to the
bridge and approach roadway. Standing water was observed throughout the wetland area.
Wetland communities were identified using the criteria specified in the 1987 "US Army Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual". For an area to be considered a "wetland", the following
three specifications must be met: 1) presence of hydric soils (low soil chroma values); 2) presence
of hydrophytic vegetation; and 3) evidence of hydrology at or near the soil surface for a portion (5
percent or greater duration) of the growing season.
Species with federal classifications of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) are protected under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (1978, 1979, 1982, and 1988 Amendments).
Candidate species do not receive protection under the Act, but are mentioned due to potential
vulnerability. Table 2 lists the federally protected species for Robeson County as of March 28, 1995.
TABLE 2
Federally Protected Species for Robeson County
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E
"Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii E
8
Brief descriptions of these species' characteristics, habitat requirements, and relationship to the
proposed project are discussed below.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Status: E
Family: Picidae
Listed: 10/13/70
This federally Endangered woodpecker is found in scattered locations throughout the southeast. The
bird measures 18 to 20 centimeters long with a wing span ranging from 35 to 38 centimeters. The
male has a small red spot on each side of the head. Both males and females show a black cap and
stripe on the side of the neck. The throat is also black while the cheeks and under parts are white.
Black and white horizontal stripes are visible on the back. Nesting habitat consists of open pine
stands (minimum age 60 years) or mixed pinethardwood stands, (50 percent or more pine). Longleaf
pine (Pinus palustris) is most commonly used, but other species of southern pine are also acceptable.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat exists along the bridge replacement alternatives. A review of North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program data revealed one record of this species approximately 1.6 kilometers (1
mile) from the subject project study area. Habitat at that location, the Biggs Longleaf stand, is a
mature longleaf pine stand (Pine Savanna) with a thin understory. The Biggs Longleaf stand is
maintained by fire suppression. Land-use between the Biggs Longleaf stand and hardwood forest is
agricultural. The area surrounding the bridge replacement alternatives is composed of a hardwood
forest with a thick shrub and sub-canopy understory. It can be concluded that project construction
will have no impact on the Red-cockaded woodpecker.
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii)
Status: E
Family: Anacardiacene
Listed: 9/28/89
N ichawes sumac was known historically from the inner coastal plain and lower piedmont of North
Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. Thirty-five populations have been reported in North Carolina.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. It is dependent on some sort of disturbance to
maintain the openness of its habitat. It grows only in open habitat where it can get full sunlight and
it does not compete well with other species such as Japanese honeysuckle.
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub that grows 0.2 to 1.0 meter in height. The
narrowly winged or wingless rachis supports 9 to 13 sessile, oblong to oblong-lanceolate leaflets that
are each 4 to 9 centimeters long, 2 to 5 centimeters wide, acute and acuminate. It bears small flowers
9
in a terminal, erect, dense cluster. The flowers are greenish to white in color. Fruits, which develop
from August to September on female plants, are a red densely short-pubescent drupe, 5 to 6
millimeters across.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat exists along the bridge replacement alternatives. Also, a review of North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the subject project study area.
It can be concluded that project construction will have no impact on the Michaux's sumac.
Federal Candidate Species:
There are 11 C2 federal candidate species listed for Robeson County. The North Carolina status of
these species is listed in Table 3.
TABLE 3
Federal Candidate Species for Robeson Coun
Common Name Scientific Name Suitable NC
Habitat Status
Rafinesque's big-eared bat Plecolus rafinesquii No Sc
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis Yes SC
Carolina crawfish frog Rana areolata capito Yes SC
Georgia leadplant Aurorpha georgiana georgiana Yes E
Sandhills milkvetch Astragalus michauxii Yes C
Venus flytrap Dionaea muscipula No C-SC
Bog spicebush Lindera subcoriacea No E
Carolina bogmint Macbridea carohniana Yes C
Wireleaf dropseed Sporobolus teretifolius No T
Dwarf burhead Echinodorus parvulus Yes C
Awned meadow-beautv Rhexia aristosa No T_
NC Status: SC, E, T, and C denote Special Concern, Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate,
respectively.
Candidate 2 (C2) species are defined as taxa for which there is some evidence of vulnerability, but
for which there is not enough data to warrant a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, or Proposed Threatened at this time. These species are mentioned here for information
purposes, should they become federally protected in the future. The North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program reported a record (August 1958), for the C2 species, Carolina bogmint (Macbridea
carohniana), from the subject project study area. Carolina bogmint was not observed during the field
survey. Specific surveys for any of the other species were not conducted, nor were these species
observed during the site visit.
State Protected Species:
Plant or animal species which are on the state list as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special
Concern (SC) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S.
10
113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G. S. 106-202. 12 et seq.).
As mentioned above, the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program records indicate. Carolina
bogmint (State listed Candidate species) was observed at the project site in August 1958. The North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program has no records of other known populations of the state listed
species occurring within 1.6 kilometer (1 mile) of the project site.
Impacts
impacts on plant communities are reflective of the relative abundance of each system present in the
study area. It should be noted that estimated impacts were derived using the entire proposed right-of-
way. Project construction often does not require the entire right-of-way and therefore actual impacts
may be less. Table 4 summarizes potential plant community impacts which could result from the
proposed bridge replacement.
TABLE 4
to Plant Communities for Alternative 1 in Hectares
Plant Communities Permanent Impact Temporary Impact
Floodplain Hardwood Forest 0.09 (0.24) 0.25 (0.62)
Urban/Disturbed 0.13 0.32 0.22 0.56
TOTAL 0.22 (0.56) 0.47(l.18)
Note: Permanent Impacts are based on a 24-meter (80-foot) corridor of the alignment. Temporary Impacts
are based on an 18-meter (60-foot) corridor of the alignment.
Impacts to plant communities as a result of bridge replacements for Alternative 1 are restricted to
narrow strips adjacent to the existing bridges and roadway segments. Bridge and approach
improvements occur primarily within disturbed right-of-way limits and hardwood forest edges. The
loss of hardwood forest habitat is likely to reduce the number of plant species which serve as shelter,
nesting and foraging habitat for numerous species of wildlife.
The proposed action will result in loss or displacement of known terrestrial plant or animal habitat.
Habitat affected by the proposed action include Urban/Disturbed and Hardwood Forested areas. The
Urban/Disturbed area is utilized by opportunistic plant species such as greenbrier and Japanese
honeysuckle and mobile species such as rodents, lizards and snakes that can recover quickly from
construction impacts. The hardwood forest areas bordering Raft Swamp will receive disturbances
next to the existing bridge area. Raft Swamp should continue to provide adequate habitat areas for
mammals, reptiles and birds.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will utilize the best management practices for the
proposed action to limit affects on the aquatic ecosystem. The disturbance of the stream bed and
sedimentation from the banks could affect aquatic life (fish, mollusks, and benthic invertebrates) both
at the project site as well as down stream reaches.
Short term impacts to water quality can be anticipated from construction-related activities, which may
increase sedimentation and turbidity. Impacts will be minimized by the use of best management
11
practices, including implementation of stringent erosion and sedimentation control measures during
construction.
Long term impacts to water resources are not expected as a result of proposed improvements. The
new bridge will maintain the present flow to protect stream integrity. Increased runoff from roadway
surfaces will be partially mitigated by providing for vegetated road shoulders and limited use of
ditching where ever possible.
Permit Coordination
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.O.E. 1344), a permit
will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters
of the United States". Since the subject project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion, it is likely that
this project will be subject to the Nationwide Permit Provisions of 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23. This permit
authorizes any activities, work and discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or
financed, in whole or in part, by another federal agency and that the activity is "categorically
excluded" from environmental documentation because it is included within a category of actions
which neither individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment. However, final
permit decisions are left to the discretionary authority of the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the N.C. Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources, will also be required. This certificate is issued for any activity which
may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal permit is required.
Compensatory mitigation is not required under a Nationwide permit. Erosion and sedimentation
control measures will be strictly enforced during construction activities to minimize unnecessary
impacts to stream and wetland ecosystems. Best Management Practices will also be implemented. Fill
material from the temporary detour within the floodplain will be removed and the area restored, to
the extent reasonably possible, to promote regeneration of the pre-construction conditions.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge will
result in safer traffic operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack
of substantial environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of the current North Carolina Department of Transportation standards and
specifications.
12
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No change in land
use is expected to result from the construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-Way acquisition will be
limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to adversely
affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The proposed project will not require right-of-way acquisition or easements from any land protected
under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106, codified at Title 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that if a
federally funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a property listed on or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an
opportunity to comment. The project is also subject to compliance with Section 4(f) of the
Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended.
To comply with those requirements, the North Carolina Department of Transportation provided
documentation on the subject project for submittal to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation
Office. There are no structures over fifty years of age in the Area of Potential Effect (APE), depicted
in Figure 2. Correspondence with the State Historic Preservation Officer (see Appendix) indicates
that no National Register-listed.or eligible properties are located within the area of potential effect.
Since there are no properties either listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
within the APE, no further compliance with Section 106, with respect to architectural resources, is
required.
In response to a scoping letter from the North Carolina Department of Transportation, the Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer, in a memorandum dated December 19, 1994 (see Appendix),
recommended that "no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project."
Therefore, no archaeological work was conducted for the project.
This project has been coordinated with the United States Soil Conservation Service. The Farmland
Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to consider the potential
impact to prime farmland of all land acquisition and construction projects. With the exception of the
construction of a temporary detour, all work will be done within the existing right-of-way.
Therefore, the project will not involve the direct conversion of prime, unique, or important farmland
acreage.
13
The project is located in Robeson County, which has been determined to be in compliance with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Parts 51 is not applicable, because the proposed
project is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effect on
the air quality of this attainment area.
This project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, the impact on noise levels and
air quality will not be substantial. Noise levels could increase during construction but will be
temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plans for air quality
in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for noise analysis of Title 23 CFR Part 772
and for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the National Environmental Policy
Act.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina
Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no underground
storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Robeson County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The approximate
100-year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 6. The amount of floodplain area to be
affected is not substantial.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in alignment will result
in a crossing of about the same magnitude. All reasonable measures will be taken to minimize any
possible harm.
The project will not increase the upstream limits of the 100-year floodplain.
In the vicinity of the project, there is one family residence located within the limits of the 100-year
floodplain.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental
impacts will result from implementation of the project.
14
- ds*
? ode 0l
?

1
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
Robeson County
NC-211 over Raft Swamp
Bridge #45
B-2860
FIGURE 1
I4
SIDE VIEW
EAST APPROACH
LOOKING WEST
WEST APPROACH
LOOKING EAST
FIGURE 3
H
CL
A P,
cn
I-
-U)
a
1 3
101 4
i 3i
J
z
O
F--
U
w
U)
S ?
U Z
0 ?- (-4j
cc
CL X
a w
Q
J
Q
U
a
N ?
CL LL

H ?
L•
f-'
z
cu
2 LL)
z
r oz
a
p 3> m
ZOpn1 w
0<

UOZZ O co 0
0 000
T
?c°i,OZU O -00 N
o
aa
cor-
m
p
im
z F- O C? tV
U '
z
.o
E

z
0
F-
U
w
tq
S a ' _0
a
U w a? iV
~
N
C) 0 0
c
a m
?-
O 0
Q ? CL
c o

J N
'-
Q
U
co
a
I- D
U`
a?
C ~r N ?

M O ...i ?
Q
d
s o
.. o 5
o
N s
?
v cn
d m ,?
J a
u n u
x _j a I-
Nr
w
EL.
o
? d
Z F,
W
Z
W
?
C4

y
d Z
¢ a
w
A j
a
? U W

x cl

Q w 3
??
^ U0Z ?a ?
p O?x G00
xN
U
?' CO N
% CA
a, O
°

O
o
p Z H C a m N
U
z
,, - lot,,

NT ?,,'t •tt ????

°
U
m
N ?
H
C
Z
O
0
Z O
O
U
U W
0
C/) O
?

iV = U O

o ?+
F
M

z U L1. f1. Ll,
O > > >
o 0 0
O N
Q V N

M -0 U
_ vvc?
E
N
Q `

r? ?
m II II fl
U >
rn rn -
Q rn rn p

z
O
H
U

w

w
Robeson County
NC-211 over Raft Swamp
Bridge #45
B-2860
AL
lu cl::?
1001
100 YEAR FLOOD LIMIT
5<??
1003 _ , ?-
J' 11 i
® SCALE: P= 1000' ?` FIGURE 6

?ctIv\
02 Q' O
0
N rth Carolina De artment of Cultural Resources
T' DEC 2 2 1994

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

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
February 21, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Barbara Church
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation lQ??
FROM: Renee Gledhill Earley
oordinator
Environmental Revie?i'
Historic Preservation Office
SUBJECT: Concurrence Forms

Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Attached are the fully executed concurrence forms for properties not eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places for the following protects:
Alamance County, B-2801; Federal Aid BRZ-1529(2), Replace Bridge No. 2
on SR 1529 over Prong of Haw River
Alamance County, B-2802, Federal Aid BRSTP-1530(1), Replace Bridge No.
13 on SR 1530 over Haw River
Brunswick County, B-2807, Federal Aid BRSTP-904(2), Replace Bridge No.
27 on NC 904 over Scippio Swamp
Cumberland County, B-2819, Federal Aid BRSTP-13(3), Replace Bridge No.
37 on US 13 over South River
Granville County, B-2828, Federal Aid BRZ-1609(1), Replace Bridge No. 14
on SR 1609 over Fishing Creek
Greene County, B-2830, Federal Aid BRSTP-123(1), Replace Bridge No. 123
on NC 123 over Contentnea Creek
More County, B-2849, Federal Aid, BRZ-1456(3), Replace Bridge No. 82 on
SR 1456 over Deep River
Nash County, B-2850, Federal Aid BRZ-1003(13), Replace Bridge No. 2 on
SR 1003 over Pig Basket Creek
New Hanover County, B-2595, Federal Aid BRSTP-11.00(5), Replace Bridge
No. 15 on SR 1 100 over Barnards Creek
109 East Jones Street • Ralcigh, North Carolina 27601-2507 ??'
Barbara Church
February 21, 1995, Page 2
Orange County, B-2852, Federal Aid BRSTP-1734(2), Replace Bridge No.
109 on SR 1734 over New Hope Creek
Richmond County, B-1336, Federal Aid BRSTP-6491(2), Replace Bridge No.
37 on NC 73 over Big Mountain Creek
Robeson County, B-2860, Federal Aid BRSTP-21 1 (1), Replace Bridge No. 45
on NC 211 over Raft Swamp
Robeson County, B-2863, Federal Aid BRZ-1935(1), Replace Bridge No. 61
on SR 1935 over Ten Mile Swamp
Scotland County, B-2866, Federal Aid BRSTP-1433(1), Replace Bridge No.
32 on SR 1433.over Lumber River
Wake County, B-2871, Federal Aid BRSTP-1152(2), Replace Bride No. 289
on SR 1152 over Swift Creek •
Please distribute to the appropriate engineer and to Federal Highway
Administration. We have kept copies for our files.
RGE:slw
Attachments
TIP # k - 2SZ-0
Federal Aid County P6F-so?J
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description
1z-F_PL Acr, e,1ztDGE t3o. 4S ora NO 2?t ovER R.A.Pr SvsAwtP
On ..3ar3uAQ.y 26 1911:5 , representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
? there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential 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 therrr9 necessary.
? there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
Representative, NCDOT Date
Z
FHwA, fj'h the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency
D
ate istoric Preservation Officer Dad
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.

!,UNITED STATES NATURAL RESOURCES POST OFFICE BOX 756
DEPARTMENT CONSERVATION FAIRMONT, NC 28340
OF AGRICULTURE SERVICE TELEPHONE [phone]
April 27, 1995
Mr.H. Frank Vick. PE
Planning and Environmental Branch fA?
NC Department of Transportation 2 e r?
P.O. Box 25201 z Raleigh, NC 27611 `
2C Cv OF
NIOHWAS
Y
RE: AD-1006 Bridge Replacement Projects F
ONMEt I P,
Dear Mr. Vick:
Enclosed are forms AD-1006 (Farmland Conversion Impact Rating) for
bridge replacement projects B-2BO7, B-2819, B-2833, B-2850, B-286:3,
B-2863, F-2866, and B-2595. I have completed Parts II, IV, and V
of the form for those projects where the corridor contains prime,
unique, statewide, or local important farmland.
In instances where the project area extended across county lines,
I prepared a separate form AD-1006 for the respective acreage that
occurs in each county.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please
contact me at the above number.
Sincerely yours,
Willie E. Spruill
Resource Soil Scientist
.Enclosures
cc: Phil Tant, Asst. State Soil Scientist, NRCS
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Soil Conservation Service SCS-CPA-106
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING 401A1
FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS
PART 1 (To be completed by Federal Agency) 3. Date of Land Evaluation Request
3 -22- 9s 14* sh.et t of /
t. Name of Project NCZ/! RObeso,r Cop 7-/P B - 2S6a 5. Federal Agency Involved
oy FHtvA
2. Type of Project
9 r 2 lanes 6. County and State Robeson CO., NC,
'ART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)
k. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
1. Total Aces To Be Converted Indirectly. Or To RE
Total Acres In Corridor
'ART IV jTobe:eottpletedbySCS)nd.Fveluef
?alai: AI7es rvria
xoentao
Alternative Corridor For
Corridor A Corridor B
O Z. /
Services O O
D 2.i
mom,
ent
Corridor C Corridor D
777777
`CE1TY{To:ba cgtrtilated-b SCStI eitd.'Evelnetlon CriterJoii:Re/et)ve<Y"'" t
fFarmbnd tti:BeSerii)eed.orCoe'verfed"Scale of'0 "• 100.F'olirts
ART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Corridor
Maximum
ssessment C-fteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(;)) Points
1- Area In Nonurban Use 15
2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use 10
3. Percent Of Corridor Beino Farmed 20
4. Protection Provided B State And Local Government 20
5. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average . .10
6. Creation Of Nonfannable Farmland 25
7. Availability (N Farr:,
-,a,m rnvesrmems 20
S. Effects Of Conversion On Farm SuDoon Services 25
10. Compatibility With Existing Aoricultural Use 10
TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS
160
%RT VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V)
100
TotaNCorridor Assessment (From Part VI above or a local site
assessment) 160
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 fines) 260
:.orridor Selected: 2. Total Aces of Farmlands to be 3. Dab
Convened by Project:
-leason
YES ? NO ?
tature of Person Completing This Part: DA E
TE: Complete a form for each seoment with more than one Altemative Corridor.