20010226 Ver 1_Complete File_20010213

10226
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTWNT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
February 8, 2001
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Mr. Dave Timpy
NCDOT Coordinator
DAVID MCCOY
ACTING SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Replacement of bridges nos. 163 and 166 on SR 1131 over Shoe
Heel Creek and overflow in Robeson County; Federal Aid No.
MABRZ-1131(3); State Project No. 8.2461901; TIP No. B-3227.
Dear Sir:
Attached for your information is a copy of the project-planning document.
prepared by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) and signed by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in February 1997. The project involves
replacing bridges nos. 163 and 166 on SR 1131 over Shoe Heel Creek and overflow,
Robeson County. The new structure to replace Bridge No. 163 will be a 2 @ 3.0 meter
by 2.7 meter (10' by 9') reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC). The new structure to
replace Bridge No. 166 will be a bridge approximately 37 meters (120 feet) in length.
Both replacements will be located at approximately the same location and roadway
elevations as the existing bridges. The travelway on the bridge will be two 3.3 meter (11
foot)lanes with 1 meter (3 foot) shoulders. Approach work will consist of resurfacing and
widening the roadway to two 3.3 meter (11 foot) lanes with 1.2 meter (4 foot) shoulders,
and installing guardrail where appropriate. The total project length will be approximately
275 meters (900 feet). Traffic will be detoured along SR 1107 and US 501 during
construction. Project construction will impact 0.11 acres of wetlands.
The project is being processed by the FHWA as a "Categorical Exclusion (CE)
in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an
individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with
33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued 13 December 1996, by the Corps of Engineers
k
(COE). The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.
It is anticipated that a 401 General Water Quality Certification for an approved
CE will apply to this project. The NCDOT will follow general conditions on permit,
Section 404 Nationwide 23. A copy of the CE document has been provided to the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality (DWQ), for their review. A copy of this document is also being provided to the
NC Wildlife Resources Commission ()vVRC) for their review. The DOT is requesting that
the WRC provide comments to the COE concerning permit requests.
Bridge No's. 163 and 166 are located on SR 1131 over the Shoe Hill Creek in
Robeson County. Both bridges are composed of completely of timber and steel. No
concrete will be dropped into Waters of the U.S. during construction. This bridge
demolition has been classified as a Case 3 Bridge Demolition (see BMP-BD&R
attachment). There are no special restrictions beyond those outlined in Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters.
As stated in the CE document for this bridge replacement, the DOT commits to
the implementation of Design Standards for Sensitive Watershed Sedimentation Control
Guidelines in addition to standard Best Management Practices.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr.
Jeffrey Burleson at (919).733-7844, Extension 315.
Sincerely,
',;/' C ''?Ct
William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
Attachments
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, DWQ
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. John Alford, P.E. Roadway Design Unit
Mrs. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. Dave Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tim Roundtree, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. T. R. Gibson, P.E., Division 6 Engineer
Mr. Dave Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Don Lee, Roadside Environmental
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM Q 1 0226
TIP Project No. B-3227
State Project No. 8.2461901
Federal-Aid Project No. MABRZ-1131(3)
A. Project Description:
The purpose of this project is to replace Bridge No's. 163 and 166 on SR 1131
over Shoe Heel Creek and Overflow in Robeson County. The new structure to
replace Bridge No. 163 will be a 2 @ 3.0 meter by 2.7 meter (10 foot by 9 foot)
reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC). The new structure to replace Bridge
No. 166 will be a bridge approximately 37 meters (120 feet) in length. Both
replacements will be located at approximately the same location and roadway
elevations as the existing bridges. The travelway on the bridge will be two 3.3 meter
(11 foot) lanes with 1 meter (3 foot) shoulders. Approach work will consist of
resurfacing and widening the roadway to two 3.3 meter (11 foot) lanes with 1.2 meter
(4 foot) shoulders, and installing guardrail where appropriate. The total project length
will be approximately 275 meters (900 feet). Traffic will be detoured along SR 1107
and US 501 during construction.
B. P=ose and Need:
Bridge No. 163 has a sufficiency rating of 21 out of 100. Bridge No. 166 has a
sufficiency rating of 23 out of 100. Both structures are two lane bridges with
5.8 meters (19.2 feet) of bridge roadway width. Modern design standards specify a
width of 8.5 meters (28 feet). Bridge No. 163 is posted for 19 tons for single vehicles
and 26 tons for TTST's. Bridge No. 166 is posted for 11 tons for single vehicles and
15 tons for TTST's. The "Do-nothing" alternate is not practical, requiring the
eventual closing of the roar?as the existing bridge completely deteriorates.
Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating bridge is neither practical nor economical.
For these reasons, Bridge No's. 163 and 166 need to be replaced.
C: Proposed Improvements:
The improvements. which apply to the project are circled:
Type II Improvements
Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing pavement
(3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveways pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening ( less than one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/ or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing hazards
and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
O Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting ( no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/ or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.

2
T
Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is consistent with existing zoning and located on or near a
street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehicle
traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are required
and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of passenger
shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements ) when
located in a commercial area or other high activity center in which there is
adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is consistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3 (b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in alignment for planned
construction projects, which may be required in the NEPA process. No
project development on such land may proceed until the NEPA process has
been completed. ,
D. Special Project Information
Environmental Commitments:
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts. All practical Best Management Practices (BMP's)
will be included and properly maintained during project construction.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 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."
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401
Water Quality General Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Army Corps
of Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23.
3
r
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction $ 650,000
Right of Way $ 35,000
Total $ 685,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 500 VPD
Year 2018 - 900 VPD
TTST - 1 %
DUAL - 3%
Proposed Typical Roadway Section:
Travelway - two 3.3 meter (11 foot) lanes
Shoulders - 1.0 meter (3 foot) on the bridge
1.2 meters (4 feet) on the approaches
Design Speed:.
100 km/h (60 mph)
Functional Classification:
Rural Local Route
Division Office Comments:
The Division 6 Engin a recommends replacing the bridges in place and
detouring traffic along surrounding roads during construction.
E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved in the project, the following evaluation must
be completed. If the project consists Qay of Type I improvements, the
following checklist does not need to be Completed.
YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique on any unique or important natural resource? X
4

(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur? X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than x
one-third (1/3) acre and have all practicable measures
wetland to avoid and minimize takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands? X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters X
(HQW)? -
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? X
PERMITS AND COORDINATION
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources?
YES NO
N/A
X
5

(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required? X
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway? X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? X
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business? X
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
(18) Will the project involve any changes in access control? X
(19) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/ or land
use of any adjacent property? X
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? X
(21) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/ or Transportation Improvement Program (and is, X
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)?
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? X
6

s
(23) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing --
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? X
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local
laws relating to the environmental aspects of the action? X
CULTURAL RESOURCES
YES NO
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on properties eligible for
or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? X
(27) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
r (public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl- X
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation
Act of 1966)?
(28) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for X
inclusion in the natura.1 Wild and Scenic Rivers?
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
Not Applicable
7
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No
State Project No.
Federal-Aid Project No.
Project Description:
MABRZ-1131
The purpose of this project is to replace Bridge No's. 163 and 166 on SR 1131
over Shoe Heel Creek and Overflow in Robeson County. The new structure to
replace Bridge No. 163 will be a 2 @ 3.0 meter by 2.7 meter (10 foot by 9 foot)
reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC). The new structure to replace Bridge
No. 166 will be a bridge approximately 37 meters (120 feet) in length. Both
replacements will be located at approximately the same location and roadway
elevations as the existing bridges. The travelway on the bridge will be two 3.3 meter
(11 foot) lanes with 1 meter (3 foot), shoulders. Approach work will consist of
resurfacing and widening the roadway to two 3.3 meter (11 foot) lanes with 1.2 meter
(4 foot) shoulders, and installing guardrail where appropriate. The project length will
be approximately 275 meters (900 feet) long. Traffic will be detoured along SR 1107
and US 501 during construction.
(See the attached location map.)
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
X TYPE II (A)
TYPE II (B)
Approved: Date Assistant Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
2- -,/ 0f7 lAla '/ /7 e- Z71,
Date Project anning Unit Head
z-/a --17
YlAnning gineer
Date Proj
e V_
B-3227
8.2461901
8
e

OF
-
T 11 V v c? O
\\ o o - y o
o,
\ - • \?cnx
,C P r ton, 0
per 1 t 01 I ,
'da 5 Raj
. / ? Shannon
Red SprmQS 4gt• S ??.?, I I
`t 5 7 Renn it A J 1 Wakulla `yt ? .lint' a?, ` .l .
won t1 Z IS ?, .e t ? Q
Ta
52 Ime Buie
i? Ramon 7 1 ,. 41 a \ /J
? b? Lurr?bertacl
I PurW arnham J17` ?? eNt a
t m3 " Allent
lb o \ /,
41
113
Faumont \ ,,? H:.
'`°c`""`\' j Studied Detour Route
orru I '
Boardmar e
¦ i? I
? 3 BamasydV
` Icm.
anett} ?
1F- '
4 North Carolina
S Department Of Transportation
.s.
Planning & Environmental Branch
ROBESON COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO's.163 AND 166
ON SR 1131 OVER SHOE HEEL CREEK
B-3227
0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
Figure 1
0 miles 1.0 miles 2.0
STA Tr
t
_ S
I ft~ (1C
T
N
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
September 30, 1996
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge 166 on SR 1 131 over Shoe Heel
Creek, Robeson County, B-3227, ER 97-7214
Dear Mr. Graf:
We regret staff was unable to attend the scoping meeting for the above project on
September 27, 1996. However, Debbie Bevin met with Jeff Ingham of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) on September 20, 1996, to
discuss the project and view the project photographs and aerial.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of th"rea, 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.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
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.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ???
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.
Si erely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: k"H" F. Vick
C. Bruton
T. Padgett

,w STA7(d
1 y?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOS'ERNOR SECRETARY
07 February 1997
MEMORANDUM TO: Wayne Elliott, Unit Head
Bridge Unit
FROM: Mark Hartman, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit 11fl
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Investigation for proposed Replacement
of Bridges No. 166 and No. 163 over Shoe Heel Creek, SR
1311, Robeson County; TIP No. B-3227; State Project No.
8.2461901; Federal Aid No. BRZ-1131(3).
ATTENTION: Jeff Ingham, Project Manager
Bridge Unit
This document addresses four issues pertinent to the development of a
Programmatic Categorical Exclusion (PCE) for the proposed project: water resources,
biotic resources, wetlands, and federally protected species. The proposed project calls
for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 166 and No. 163 over Shoe Heel Creek,
SR 1131, Robeson County. There is only one alternate being considered for this
project. That alternate consists of replacement, in place, with a new bridge (No. 166),
and a 2 barrel, 3 by 2.7 m (10 by 9 ft) reinforced box culvert (No. 163) and an off-site
detour. Project length is 274 m (900 ft), existing right- of-way (ROW) width is ditchline
to ditchline and proposed ROW is 24 m (80 ft).
Prior to a site visit, published resource information pertaining to the project area
was gathered and reviewed. Information sources include; U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) quadrangle maps (Maxton Quad), National Wetlands Inventory Maps (NWI),
NCDOT aerial photographs of the project area (1:2500), Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) [formerly known as the Soil Conservation Service (SCS)]
soil maps (Robeson County, 1959), NC Center for Geographic Information and
Analysis Environmental Sensitivity Base Map of Robeson County (1995), US Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of protected species and N.C. Natural Heritage Program
(NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats.
0
A field investigation was conducted on 15 January 1997 by NCDOT biologists
Mark Hartman and Bruce Ellis to assess natural resources at the project site. Water
resources were identified and described. Plant communities were surveyed, and
wildlife populations were predicted using general qualitative habitat assessments.
TERMINOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS
For the purposes of this document, the following terms are used concerning the
limits of natural resources investigated. Project study area (study area) denotes the
area bounded by the proposed ROW limits. Project vicinity describes an area
extending 0.8 km (0.5 mi) on all sides of the project study area. Project region is
equivalent to an area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map [163.3 sq.
km (61.8 sq. mi)], with the project as the center point.
WATER RESOURCES
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be
impacted by the project. Water resource information encompasses physical
characteristics of the resource, its relationship to major water systems, Best Usage
Standards and water quality aspects of the water resources present within the project
area. Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as are means to
minimize impacts.
Waters Impacted
The project is located in the Lumber River drainage basin. One water resource,
Shoe Heel Creek, will be impacted by the subject project. Shoe Heel Creek is a typical
Coastal Plain blackwater stream. It has two discrete channels running through the
project area, but upstream and downstream of the bridges the channels are somewhat
less well defined. The smaller channel is approximately 10 m (30 ft) wide and up to 2
m (6 ft) deep and the larger channel is approximately 18 m (60 ft) wide and up to 2.4 m
(8.0 ft) deep. Substrates are a mix of sand, silt, and gravel, and there is an abundance
of allochthonous organic material in the form of leaf packs and woody debris. As is
typical of Coastal Plain streams, there is a relatively well-defined channel with
extensive floodplain wetlands fanning out upstream and downstream of the bridge.
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of
Environmental Management (DEM) now known as the Division of Water Quality
(DWQ). The best usage classification for unnamed tributaries is the same as that
applied to the named section into which the unnamed tributary flows. This
classification scheme allows for protection of waters downstream from unnamed and
intermittent streams. The Best Usage Classification for Shoe Heel Creek (DEM index
14-34) is C, with the supplemental classification of Sw. Class C refers to waters
suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation
and agriculture. Sw (Swamp water) is a supplemental water classification including
waters which have low velocities and other natural characteristics which are different
from adjacent streams. No High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or
WS-11), or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the
project area.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed by DWQ
and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses
long term trends in water quality. The program assesses water quality by sampling for
selected benthic macro invertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites.
Macro invertebrates are sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the
species richness and overall biomass of these organisms are reflections of water
quality. One BMAN sampling site is located approximately 5.1 km (3.2 mi) downstream
of the project. This site was sampled in July 1985, July 1987, and August 1990. In
1985 and 1987 Shoe Heel creek was given a "good" water quality classification, and in
1990, it was classified as "Excellent." Taxa richness has steadily increased at this site
suggesting an improvement in water quality.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted
through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any
discharger is required to register for a permit. There are no NPDES permitted
dischargers within the project vicinity.
2.3.4 ANTICIPATED IMPACTS: WATER RESOURCES
Potential impacts to water resources include increased sedimentation,
decreases of dissolved oxygen, and changes in temperature which may result from
construction in and around the water bodies in the project area.
Sedimentation is the most serious threat to the waters impacted by the proposed
action. Not only is sedimentation detrimental to the aquatic ecosystem, but changes in
physical characteristics of the stream also occur. Sedimentation of the stream channel
causes changes in flow rate and stream course, which may lead to increased
streambank scour and erosion. Sedimentation also leads to increased turbidity of the
water column.
Removal of streamside canopy and removal/burial of aquatic vegetation results
in numerous impacts. Streamside vegetation is crucial for maintaining streambank
stability, controlling erosion and buffering water temperature, as well as contributing a
significant food source to the stream ecosystem. Aquatic vegetation serves an
important role in the stream ecosystem as food and shelter, as well as contributing
oxygen to the water and stabilizing the bottom sediments.
Additionally, modification of the forested communities adjacent to the water
bodies crossed can disrupt the hydrological continuity of those stream systems.
Clearing and grading of these communities will cause changes in ground and surface
water exchanges between the associated streams. Landscape modification of the
forested communities will reduce the natural storage and infiltration of rainwater in the
community, which leads to increased peak stream flow and a greater potential for toxins
washed from impermeable surfaces to reach the stream.
= Numerous pollutants have been identified in highway runoff, including various
metals (lead, zinc, iron etc.), nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus) and petroleum (Gupta et
a/. 1981). The sources of these runoff constituents range from construction and
maintenance activities, to daily vehicular use. The toxicity of highway runoff to aquatic
ecosystems is poorly understood. Some species demonstrate little sensitivity to
highway runoff exposure, while other species are much more sensitive. The levels of
the toxins and the duration of the exposure are major factors determining the
ecosystem's response to runoff. Pollutant concentrations of receiving waters are
directly related to traffic volume. It is apparent that highway runoff can significantly
degrade the quality of the receiving water bodies, which in turn significantly affects the
ecosystems present.
2.3.5 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommended methods to reduce sedimentation and/or pollutant
loads have been shown to be efficient and cost effective, and should be implemented to
protect aquatic resources.
• Strict enforcement of sedimentation control Best Management Practices (BMP's) for
the protection of surface waters during the entire life of the project
• Reduction of clearing and grubbing activity, particularly in riparian areas
• Reduction/elimination of direct discharge into streams
• Reduction of runoff velocity
• Re-establishment of vegetation on exposed areas
• Litter control
The use of any number of these methods will be effective in reducing water
quality degradation resulting from project construction. Other structural methods which
are effective at sedimentation/pollutant reduction which may be considered include:
• Wet detention basins
• Dry extended detention basins
• Infiltration systems
• Wetland creation
BIOTIC RESOURCES
This section describes the ecosystems encountered and the relationships
between vegetative and faunal components within terrestrial, and aquatic ecosystems.
Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community
classifications (Schafale and Weakley, 1990).
Representative animal species which are -likely to occur in these habitats are
cited, along with brief descriptions of their respective "roles" within that community.
Animals observed during the site visit are denoted by (*) in the text. Sightings of spoor
evidence are equated with sightings of individuals. Scientific nomenclature and
common names (when applicable) are used for plant and animal species described.
Subsequent references to the same organism will include the common name only.
Terrestrial Communities
There are two distinct terrestrial communities identified within the project area:
maintained roadside and cypress-gum swamp (blackwater subtype). There is a sharply
defined transition between the heavily maintained roadside and the relatively
undisturbed cypress-gum swamp. Community composition is reflective of the
physiography, topography and current and prior land uses of the area. All community
types have had some degree of past, or continued human disturbance. As a result of
disturbances, changes in vegetative dominance often occur within the community
types.
Numerous terrestrial animals are highly adaptive and populate a variety of
habitats, therefore many of the species mentioned may occur in either of the community
types described. Other animals are tolerant of a narrow range of environmental .
conditions and may be limited to a particular habitat type. These species are the most
vulnerable to habitat disturbance.
3.1.1 MAINTAINED ROADSIDE COMMUNITY
The disturbed community consists of areas along roadways which have been
heavily impacted and maintained by human development activities. Such areas extend
out approximately 5 m (15 ft) on both sides of the existing roadway. Significant soil
disturbance and compaction, along with frequent mowing or herbicide application, keep
this community in an early successional state. Common herbaceous species in this
community include crown grass (Paspalum sp.), crab grass (Digitaria sp.), bluet
(Houstonia sp.), grape (Vitis sp.), rabbit tobacco (Gnapthalium obtusifolium), English
plantain (Plantago rugellii), horseweed (Erigeron canadensis), wild lettuce (Lactuca
sp.), goldenrod (Solidago altissima), smartweed (Polygonum pennsylvanicum), vervain
(Verbena sp.), wood sorrel (Oxalis stricta), Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota), Asiatic
dayflower (Commelina communis), partridge pea (Cassia fasciculata), ragweed
(Ambrosia artemisiifolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), trumpet vine (Campsis
radicans), evening primrose (Oenothera biennis), fescue (Festuca sp.), wild rye grass
(Elymus sp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and dog fennel (Eupatorium
capillifolium).
Wildlife found in this community type is limited and consists primarily of wide-
ranging, adaptable species. Other animals may use this area as a corridor for travel
between less disturbed habitats, or as a foraging area. Reptiles commonly found in
disturbed habitats include the eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) and black
racer (Coluber constrictor). Birds potentially found in disturbed habitats include
American robin (Turdus migratorius), Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis),
mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus),
European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), scarlet tanager (Piranga olivacea), yellow billed
cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus),
bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), common crow (Corvus brachyrynchos), prairie warbler
(Dendroica discolor), and American kestrel (Falco sparverius). Mammalian species
likely to frequent disturbed habitats include eastern cottontail (Sylvagus floridanus),
white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), and hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus).
Cypress Gum Swamp (Blackwater Subtype)
The blackwater cypress gum swamp and its associated floodplain community
contains plants such as bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), pond cypress (Taxodium
ascendens), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), butternut hickory (Carya cordiformis),
black willow (Sa/ix nigra), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), river birch (Betula nigra), red
maple (Aces rubrum), American elm (U/mus americana), sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus), orange jewelweed (Impatiens capensis),
Japanese grass (Microstegium vimineum), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), Asiatic
dayflower, ragweed, poison ivy, tearthumb (Polygonum saggitatum), and burreed
(Sparganium sp.). Aquatic and amphibious species take advantage of the semi-
permanent and shallow permanent waters associated with blackwater swamps. Many
crayfish species (Decapoda) are able to occupy ditches and depressions that are
seasonally de-watered by burrowing into moist soil near the temporary water source.
These areas also support amphibian reproduction and are likely used by southern
cricket frogs (Acris gryllus), and green tree frogs (Hyla cinerea). Some fish find suitable
habitat in these areas, and may even find refugia in the form of pools in which to wait
out low or no flow events. Piscine species such as the eastern mosquitofish
(Gambusia holbrooki), and the eastern mudminnow (Umbra pygmaea) are able to
survive the low oxygen conditions which accompany the warm, stagnant water which
occur in these areas
Avian species can take advantage of cypress/gum swamps as both nesting and
foraging habitat. Piscivores such as the belted kingfisher are likely to use habitats with
access to deeper water. Other birds potentially found in this community include wood
duck (Aix sponsa), prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria citrea), northern parula (Parula
americana), golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa), and ruby-crowned kinglet
(Regulus calendula). The cypress/gum swamp also provides habitat for many
mammals such as marsh rabbit (Sylvagus palustris), southeastern shrew (Sorex
longirostris), marsh rice rat (Oryzomys palustris), and muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus).
3.2 AwATIc COMMUNITIES
Shoe Heel Creek is a coastal plain blackwater stream community which is
characterized by a sandy, silty substrate and warm, clear, tannin stained water. Flow
varies seasonally and with precipitation intensity. These streams are very low gradient
and are generally slow flowing. Scattered woody debris occurs within the channel and
along the shoreline. Dominant fauna found in these rivers or along the shoreline
includes a variety of aquatic and semiaquatic species. A muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus)
midden was observed under the smaller of the two bridges. Native mussel valves were
recovered from this midden and identified. The midden contained the remains of four
elliptio (Elliptio spp.), three uniomerus (Uniomerus spp.) and one lanceolate elliptio
(Elliptio sp.). No fish were observed during the site visit, but the stream could provide
habitat for resident species such as shiners (Notropis spp.), darters (Etheostoma spp.),
redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), pumpkinseed
(Lepomis gibbosus), green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), yellow bullhead (Ameiurus
natalis), carp (Cyprinus carpio), and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). Other
piscine inhabitants include species less sensitive to low oxygen conditions such as
longnose gar (Lepisosteus osseus), bowfin (Amia Galva), redfin pickerel (Esox
americanus), and chain pickerel (Esox niger). Amphibians and reptiles expected to
occur in this community include dwarf mudpuppy (Necturus punctatus), lesser siren
(Siren intermedia), greater siren (Siren lacertina), two-toed amphiuma (Amphiuma
means), green frog (Rana clamitans), pickerel frog (Rana palustris), snapping turtle
(Chelydra serpentaria), queen snake (Regina septemvittata), and northern water snake
(Nerodia sipedon). * Mammals known to use aquatic habitats include muskrat, beaver
(Castor canadensis), and river otter (Lutra canadensis).
Terrestrial Community Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources
have the potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies
impacts to the natural resources in terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected.
Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here as well.
The plant communities found along the project alignment serve as shelter,
nesting and foraging habitat for numerous species of wildlife. Loss of habitat initially
displaces faunal organisms from the area, forcing them to concentrate into a smaller
area, which causes over-utilization and degradation of the habitat. This ultimately
lowers the carrying capacity of the remaining habitat and is manifested in some species
as becoming more susceptible to disease, predation and starvation.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of each
community present in the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Estimated impacts are derived using the
entire proposed project length of 274 m (900 ft) and a proposed ROW of 24 m (80 ft).
Often, project construction does not require the entire right of way; therefore, actual
impacts may be considerably less. Approximately 0.4 ha (1.1 ac) of disturbed roadside
may be impacted by the subject project. In addition, approximately 0.38 ha (0.96 ac) of
cypress gum swamp may be impacted by project construction. The disturbed roadside
community will be replaced by an equivalent community through re-vegetation at
project completion.
Aquatic Community Impacts
The aquatic environment serves as a major food source for many terrestrial
organisms such as raccoons, various species of snakes, birds, turtles and amphibians.
It also serves as a means of predator avoidance for many animals.
Benthic non-mobile organisms, such as filter and deposit feeders, and macro
and micro.alga, are particularly sensitive to construction activities such as dredging,
filling, pile driving operations and slope stabilization. These construction activities
physically disturb the substrate, resulting in loss of sessile benthic organisms. Many of
these aquatic organisms are slow to recover, or repopulate an area, because they
require a stabilized substrate for attachment. Substrate stability may take a long time
to develop, therefore, changes in community composition will occur.
Populations of photosynthetic species, the primary producers in the food chain,
can be greatly effected by siltation. The increased amount of suspended particles in the
water column reduces the photosynthetic ability, by absorbing available light. Clogging
of feeding apparati of suspension feeders and burial of newly settled larvae of these
organisms, are other effects of siltation. These species are often primary consumers in
the food chain, and are a major step in the aquatic food web. Impacts to these
organisms may directly effect organisms higher in the food chain, such as fish,
amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals.
Mobile aquatic organisms may escape some of the effects of siltation, however
gills of fish, crustaceans and larval amphibian and insect forms can become clogged
and dysfunctional as a result of sedimentation. Spawning habitats for these mobile
species may become filled with sediment, diminishing reproductive success and
inevitably reducing populations.
Habitat disturbance and sedimentation are extremely detrimental to aquatic
ecosystems. Best Management Practices (BMP's) for protection of surface waters
must be strictly adhered to, to ensure the biological integrity of the water bodies
impacted by this project.
WETLANDS AND SURFACE WATERS
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part
328.3. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated or
saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support,
and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill into these
areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Waters of the United States will be impacted by the subject project. Field
surveys revealed that wetlands are present in the project area. Hydric soils and
hydrophytic vegetation are present in the project area, and there was evidence of
surface and subsurface saturated conditions. Indicators include innundation, obvious
drainage patterns, and water stained leaves. Estimated impacts are derived using the
entire proposed project length of 274 m (900 ft) and a proposed ROW of 24 m (80 ft).
Approximately 0.38 ha (0.96 ac) of cypress gum swamp may be impacted by project
construction. Often, project construction does not require the entire right of way;
therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
A North Carolina DWQ Section 401 Water Quality General Certification is also
required. A DWQ Section 401 Water Quality General Certification is a prerequisite to
issuance of a Section 404 Permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the
state issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity
that may result in a discharge into waters of the United States.
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (23) is likely to be applicable for all
impacts to Waters of the United States resulting from the proposed project. This permit
authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in
whole, or part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or
department has determined the pursuant to the council on environmental quality
regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act:
(1) that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment,
and;
(2) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency'
or department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES
Threatened or endangered species are species whose populations are in
decline and which face probable extinction in the near future without strict conservation
management. Federal law under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as
amended, protects plant and animal species which have been classified as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), or Proposed Threatened
(PT). Provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the ESA require that any action which is
likely to adversely affect such federally classified species be subject to review by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other potentially endangered species may
receive additional protection under separate state laws. In North Carolina, protection
of endangered species falls under the N.C. State Endangered Species Act and the N.C.
Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979, administered and enforced by the N.C.
Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) and the N.C. Department of Agriculture,
respectively.
Federally-Protected Species
As of 23 August 1996, the FWS lists the following federally-protected species for
Robeson County (Table 1). A brief description of the characteristics and habitat
requirements of each species follows Table 1, along with a conclusion regarding
potential project impacts.
Table 1. Federally-Protected Species Listed for Robeson Count
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E
Alligator mississippiensis American alligator T(S/A)
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E
T(S/A) Species that is threatened due to similarity of experience with other rare
species and is listed for its protection.
E denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range).
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) ENDANGERED
Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is entirely black
and white except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The back
of the RCW is black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this
woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek patch
surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf
pine (Pines palustris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain
at least 50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be
appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in trees that are >60
years old and are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age. The foraging
range of the RCW is up to 200 hectares (500 acres). This acreage must be contiguous
with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that
are infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in
colonies from 3.6-30.3 m (12-100 ft) above the ground and average 9.1- 15.7 m (30-50
ft) high. They can be identified by a large incrustation of running sap that surrounds
the tree. The RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch approximately
38 days later.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION
NO EFFECT
No nesting or foraging habitat, in the form of pine stands 30 years of age or
older with sparse undergrowth, was present within the project area. The only forested
habitat potentially disturbed by this project is a blackwater swamp, and is not suitable
habitat for red-cockaded woodpeckers. In addition, the NCNHP database of rare
species and unique habitats was reviewed and revealed no records of red-cockaded
woodpeckers occurring within 0.8 km (0.5 mi). Therefore, the subject project will not
affect this species.
Alligator mississippiensis (American alligator)
THREATENED (S/A)
The alligator is not biologically endangered or threatened and is not subject to section
7 consultation. The similar species, the American crocodile, is not found in North
Carolina
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac) ENDANGERED
Plant Family: Anacardiaceae
Federally Listed: 28 September 1989
Flowers Present: June
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub. The bases of the
leaves are rounded and their edges are simply or doubly serrate. The flowers of
Michaux's sumac are greenish to white in color. Fruits, which develop from August to
September on female plants, are a red densely short-pubescent drupe.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. Michaux's sumac is dependent
on some sort of disturbance to maintain the openness of its habitat. It usually grows in
association with basic soils and occurs on sand or sandy loams. Michaux's sumac
grows only in open habitat where it can get full sunlight. Michaux's sumac does not
compete well with other species, such as Japanese honeysuckle, with which it is often
associated.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION
NO EFFECT
Habitat for Michaux's sumac, sandy open woods, does not exist within the
project area. In addition, a search of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique
habitats revealed no records of Michaux's sumac within the project area. Therefore,
the subject project will not affect this species.
Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
Thirteen Federal Species of Concern (FSC) species are listed by the FWS for
Robeson County as of 23 August 1996 (Table 2). Federal candidate species are not
afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to
any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as
Threatened or Endangered. FSC species are defined as taxa for which there is some
evidence of vulnerability, but for which there are not sufficient data to warrant a formal
federal listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered or Proposed
Threatened. However, the status of these species is subject to change, and so is
included for consideration.
In addition, organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or
Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of Rare Plant
and Animal Species are afforded limited state protection under the NC State
Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Species listed under state laws may or may not be federally-protected. Species with
state designations of Candidate (C), Significantly Rare (SR), and Watch List (W) are
not protected under state laws; however, evidence suggests that populations of these
species are also in decline.
Table 2 lists federal candidate species, the state status of these species (if
afforded state protection), and the potential for suitable habitat in the project area for
each species. This species list is provided for information purposes as the protection
status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
Table 2. Federal Species of Concern, Robeson County.
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NC
STATUS HABITAT
Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow - SC no
Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque's big-eared bat Sc no
Heterodon simus southern hognose snake SR no
Rana capito capito Carolina gopher frog Sc no
Amorpha georgiana var Georgia leadplant E no
georgiana
Astraga/us michauxii Sandhills milkvetch C no
Dionaea muscipula Venus flytrap C-SC no
Echinodorus parvulus dwarf burhead C yes
Lindera subcoriacea bog spicebush E no
Macbridea caroliniana Carolina bogmint C yes
Rhexia aristosa awned meadow-beauty T no
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were any
of these species observed. A review of the NCNHP data base of rare species and
unique habitats revealed no records of North Carolina rare and/or protected species in
or near the project study area.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Environmental Unit Head
Hal Bain, Environmental Supervisor
File B-3227
c
FINAL
9-20-99
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Best Management Practices
For Bridge Demolition and Removal
The following Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal
(BMP-BDR) was developed in coordination with the Army Corps of Engineers (COE),
the Wildlife Resource Commission, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and others
with the goal of establishing a consistent, environmentally sound approach to the
demolition and removal of bridges on North Carolina's public road systems. These
Practices shall be an addendum to (not a replacement for) NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters.
The primary objective of these guidelines shall be to protect the water quality and
aquatic life of the affected environment in the vicinity of a project. The Department shall
use these BMP-BDR consistently on all projects involving bridge removal over a water
body.
All projects shall fall into one of the following three categories.
Case I - "In water" work is restricted to an absolute minimum,. due to the presence of
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) or Threatened and/or Endangered Species (T&E
Species). All work potentially effecting the resource will be carefully coordinated with
the agency having jurisdiction.
Case 2 - allows no work at all in the water during moratorium periods associated with
fish migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery areas.
Case 3 - there are no special restrictions beyond those outlined in Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters and the supplements added by this document
on Bridge Demolition. All three Cases are subject to BMP-BDR's.
It is not the intention of these guidelines to prevent the creativity of the contractor
in the removal of the bridge. If the contractor or Resident Engineer devises a means of
removal that retains the spirit of these guidelines but does not adhere to the letter, such a
means will be considered by the NCDOT Resident Engineer, the NCDOT Natural
Systems Specialist, and the federal and/or state agency representative(s). With that
caveat in mind, the following guidelines will be applied as appropriate during the
construction and demolition stages of a project:
• The contractor shall be required to submit a plan for bridge demolition and debris
removal to the Resident Engineer, and must receive written approval from the
Resident Engineer prior to any demolition work beginning.
• If there is a special resource, Case 1 (for example a Threatened or Endangered
Species), pointed out in the document, special provisions will apply to both the
construction of the new structure and demolition and removal of the old structure.
Such special provisions may supersede the guidelines herein.
Page 1 of 3
FINAL
9-20-99
Bridge Shall Be Removed Without Dropping Components Into The Water
If a bridge is to be removed in a fashion such that there is a practical alternative
to dropping bridge components into the water, that alternative shall be followed.
In the case of a concrete deck, the bridge deck shall be removed by sawing
completely through the concrete thickness. Removal may be in sections out between
the beams or a cut full length of span between the beams. No part of the structure
will be allowed to fall into the water. The concrete shall be removed from the site
intact and placed/retained in an upland disposal area.
If it is determined that components of the bridge must be dropped into the water, all
efforts will be made to minimize the overall impact to the surface waters. If the
bridge is composed of several spans, the demolition shall occur one spanat a time.
Components from a given span which have been dropped into the water must be
removed from the water before demolition can proceed to the next span.
• If it is determined that components of the bridge must be dropped into the water, any
and all asphalt wearing surface shall be removed and not dropped into the water.
If a CAMA permit is required, dropping any component of a bridge into the water
will not be acceptable unless it is proven that there is no feasible alternative. Such an
activity would require coordination with and approval of CAMA.
Every bridge to be removed which is constructed completely of timber shall be
removed without dropping components of the bridge into the water. If an unusual
circumstance arises where the contractor believes that a bridge component must be
dropped into the water, the contractor must alert the Resident Engineer. The Resident
Engineer shall coordinate with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Natural Systems
Specialist who obtained the permit to discuss the necessary course of action. This is
anticipated to be a rare occurrence.
• If the substructure of abridge includes timber or steel piles, they shall be removed by
cutting them off level with surface of the streambed. In no circumstance are the piles
to remain above the surface of the streambed. This shall be accomplished in a fashion
which minimizes the increase of sediment into the surface waters. As an exception,
piles that are in conflict with the proposed piers may be completely removed by
pulling. Timber or steel piles will be removed in a fashion that does not allow the
pile to fall into the water. In tidal areas it may be necessary to remove the piers
completely or to some depth below the substrate because of sand/current movement
over time. Such a need will be established in the Greensheet(s) Project
Commitments.
Non Shattering Methods
• Every bridge demolition shall be accomplished by non-shattering methods.
Shattering means any method which would scatter debris. A wrecking ball is no
longer an acceptable tool for bridge removal. Explosives, a "hoe-ram", or other
comparable tools may be used in such a fashion that fractures but does not shatter and
1
Page 2 of 3
FINAL
9-20-99

scatter bridge components into the water. A possible exception to this rule might be a
concrete arch bridge in which case a method shall be found which minimizes impact
to the extent practical and feasible. In the case of an exception, the method of
demolition will be developed in consultation with the appropriate federal and state
agencies.
Use of Explosives
• In the event that there is not a practical alternative to non-shattering, alternate
methods of bridge demolition shall be discussed with and approved by the Army
Corps of Engineers and other federal and state resource agencies having jurisdiction
over the resource.
All parties involved recognize that explosives are sometimes required to remove
components of a bridge. However, at the present, the proper means of applying those
explosives is not agreed upon. The various agencies involved agree that over time,
we will come to agreement on the use of explosives in a form that will be included in
these BMP's for Bridge Demolition and will not require special consultation. For
the present, if it is determined that explosives are required to remove any
component of a bridge, that activity shall be coordinated with the Army Corps of
Engineers in addition to the state or federal agency with jurisdiction over that
particular water. This issue shall be revisited at the earliest time possible to
determine appropriate measures to include in these BMP's which shall minimize or
eliminate the consultations required in the future.
General
• Where there are sedimentation concerns the Greensheet Project Commitments may
identify the need for turbidity curtains (or similar devices) in the demolition and
construction phases of a project in the area of concern to limit the impacts.
• If damage is done to the bank as a result of debris removal, the COE shall be
consulted and the bank shall be re-stabilized to natural contours using indigenous
vegetation prior to completion of activities in that period of construction.
• If the new bridge does not go back on the original alignment, the banks shall be
restored to original contours revegetated with indigenous species as appropriate.
• Any machine operating in an area which could leak engine fluids into the water shall
be inspected visually on a daily basis for leakage. If leakage is found, the fluid(s)
shall be contained and removed immediately in accordance with applicable state
regulations and guidelines, as well as the equipment repaired prior to further use.
• When pumping to de-water a drilled shaft pier, the discharge shall be into an
acceptable sediment containment bin to minimize siltation in the water.
Page 3 of 3