19970784 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19970915

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality

James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director

.AVA

DEHNR

September 24, 1997
Robeson County
Wry::. 401 Project #970784
TIP No. B- 3035

APPROVAL 01 401 Water Quality Certification

Mr. Frank Vick
NC Dot
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, NorthCarolina 27611-5201

Dear Mr. Vicle

You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, to fill in 0.48 acres of wetlands or waters for the purpose
of replacing bridge 1# 103 at Lumber River as you described in your application dated September 10, 1997, After reviewing your
application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3107 This Certification
allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 23 when it is issued by the Corps of Engineers, In addition. you should get any
other federal. state or 10cal permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion
Control, Coastal Stonnwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. Also this approval will expire when the
accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.

This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. H you change your project,
you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. H total wetland fills for this project (now or in the
future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h). For this approval to
be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification.

Hyou do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within
60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition which conforms to Chapter lSOB of
the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N,C.27611-7447, This
certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing,

This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you have
any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.

Attachment

cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineezs
Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
Fayetteville DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files

,
9707841tr
.

Division of Water Quality · Environmental ScIences Branch
Environmental Sc:Iences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh. NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX' 733-9959
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative AcIIon Employer. 50% recycled110% post consumer paper

JAMES B, HUNT, J It
GOVERNOR

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
1',0, BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N,C. 27611-5201

R, SAMUEl. HUNT III
SrCRITARY

May 5, 1995

MEMORANDUM TO:

Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor

FROM:

H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch

SUBJECT:

Review of Scoping Sheets for Replacing Bridge No. 103
on SR 2202 over Lumber River, Robeson County, Federal
Aid Project No. BRSTP-2202(1), State Project
No. 8.2461201, TIP No. B-3035

Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location), The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project, A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for June 6, 1995 at 9:30 a.m. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.

Attachment

~ rl\(rJ

- ,'11. 0 w~' i)
, .
~ ~ ~1~

(l<~~ W~

Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call Wayne Fedora, P. E., Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.

03075/
L~~ -e
S ~I ~
~O-~)

/'(Cee j L I() 'iv' ,.(

J~( c) /15

/4-(13)

c Sw

WF/plr

~~cs
/t4r tV~D
~~-?O~~ 0 t1 ~S
....() t1t~(
-""'/..t.5'Ci(:;
~~O'

(i)

BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET

TIP PROJECT:

B-3035

DIVISION: SIX

F, A, PROJECT: BRSTP-2202(1) COUNTY: ROBESON

STATE PROJECT:

8.2461201

ROUTE:

SR 2202

PROJECT PURPOSE: Replace Obsolete Bridge

DESCRIPTION:

Replace Bridge No, 103 on SR 2202 over Lumber
River in Robeson County

PROJECT USGS QUAD SHEET:

Lumberton

TIP CONSTRUCTION COST"""""""""""""""" $ 575,000
TIP RIGHT OF VAY COST""""""".".,."""""" $ 40,000
PRIOR YEARS COST, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . , , , , , , , , , , " $
TIP TOTAL COST, , , . , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ' , , , , , , , , , , " $ 615, 000

VILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X

IF YES, BY VHOM AND VHAT AMOUNT:

($ )

(%)

TRAFFIC:

CURRENT
TIST

VPD; DESIGN YEAR
DT

VPD

PROPOSED TYPICAL ROADVAY SECTION: , -METER ( -FOOT) TRAVELVAY
PLUS METER ( , -FOOT) GRADED
SHOULDERS ( , -METER/ , -FOOT IF
GUARDRAIL IS USED)

EXISTING STRUCTURE:LENGTH 61,3 Meters VIDTH
201,0 Feet

9 ,0 Meters
29,5 Feet

PROPOSED STRUCTURE:

COMMENTS:

PREPARED BY: Vayne Fedora, P,E, DATE 05/01/95

1.33

~
(ij)
~

'~
~

2204

,09

2307 ~

. . . . .

StUdied Detour Route I

~ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVffiONMENTAL
BRANCH
SR 2202
BRIDGE ~O. 1/)3
OVER LUMBER RIVER
T.I,P. NO, B-3035
0 kilometers 0.42 8 miles 0.26
I I I I I I

.

/

."'.....:;..:,

. ':"-1""':

--

,'"
,.1

.'

:b

-
-"
" '-
"
/
-

, -
\ ,
\

<P

'\: -~- -
\ ~...:.~
"", -\ c::- _=
,.~ ~....

'~~~
~. "\-.-
o ' ~
, , ':.. '..

-~-

,
-., ./

"

.

. -

N. C. DEPARTMI!:NT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP i7b/90.. . .
TO: 111:1", NO, Oil II00M, 'LOCI,
e>-;. c. G,Al a", ~ . DeM
WM: 111:1", NO. Oil II00M. 'LDCI,
P'T€:
a.rft.e. ~or~le' 6.
c:: ION
0 NOTI: AND I"ILE 0 ..1:11 DUll CONYI:IISATION
0 NOTI: AND III:TUIIN TO MI: 0 "1:11 YOUII RI:QU.ST
0 RnUIIN WITH MOIII: DETAILS 0 1"011 YOUII A....Il0YAL
0 NOTI: AND S.. M. A'OUT THIS ~II YOUIl INI"OIlMATfON
0 ..L.ASI: ANSW.II 0 1"011 YOU II COMMI:NTS
0 ""I:..AIII: IIE..LY 1"011 MY SIClNATUIlI: 0 SIClNATUII.
0 TAKI: A....II0..IIIAT. ACTION 0 INYI:STIClAT. AND III:I'(>IIT
COMMENT.:
.

. ~

RECEIVED

JUL 2 5 1995

ENVIRON~ENTfl,L SCIENCES
"'I ~ . ''''It!

JAMIS g, IIlJNT JR,
( illVllZNOIZ

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
1',0. !lOX 25201. RAl.FI(jf{, N,C 27(,11-520]

R. SAMUEL HUNT II I
Sll'IU IAI(Y

July 19, 1995

MEMORANDUM TO:

Mr, Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor

FROM:

Wayne Fedora, P.E.
Planning and Environmental Branch

SUBJECT:

Scoping Meeting for Replacement of Bridge No. 103 on
SR 2202 over Lumber River in Robeson County, Federal Aid
Project No. BRSTP-2202(1), State Project No. 8.2461201,
T. J.P. No. B-3035

The Planning and Environmental Branch held a scoping meeting on 6 June
1995 to initiate the subject project. Attached is a list of those attending.

The participants decided on one method for replacement: replace at
existing location with road closure. Traffic will be maintained on the
existing roads as shown in Figure 1. The replacement structure will be a
bridge 61 meters (200 feet) long and 9,2 meters (30 feet) wide,

The estimated construction cost is $725,000.

The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) does not recommend
archaeological or historic architectural surveys.

The Division of Environmental Management classifies the waterway
as a Class C-Swamp. The agency requests that there be no weep holes in the
new bridge,

The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) requested High
Quality Waters erosion control measures and an in-water construction
moratorium from 15 March to 15 June.

The Division Six Construction Engineer indicated a preference for
closing the road during construction and maintaining traffic on existing area
roads as shown in Figure 1.

There are currently ten to twelve school bus crossings at the bridge
each school day. The Transportation Director for Robeson County indicates
that road closure would not create major problems.

(i)

July 19, 1995
Page 2

The project requires no special bicycle accommodations.

The current project schedule includes right-of-way beginning July 1997,
and Letting for July 1998.

WF/plr

Attachments

Scoping Meeting Attendance Sheet
for 8-3035, Robeson County

Name

Department
Planning & Environmental
Planning & Environmental (T.E.A.)
Traffic Control

Wayne Fedora

Greg Blakeney
Jay Woolard
Ell is Powell

Structure Design
State Historic Preservation Office

Debbie Bevin

Jerry Snead
Tracey Conrad
Don Sellers

Hydraulics

Division 6

Right-of-Way

Imad Abouyounis
John Taylor

Roadway Design

Location & Surveys

Tri ce Lambert

Rail Division

Theresa Ellerby
Darin Wilder

Program Development

Program Development

BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET

TIP PROJECT:

B-3035

DIVISION: SIX

F. A, PROJECT: BRSTP-2202(1) COUNTY:

ROBESON

STATE PROJECT: 8,2461201 ROUTE:

SR 2202

PROJECT PURPOSE:

Replace Obsolete Bridge

DESCRIPTION:

Replace Bridge No. 103 on SR 2202 over Lumber
River in Robeson County

PROJECT USGS QUAD SHEET: Lumberton

TIP CONSTRUCTION COST........"...................,..
TI P RIGHT OF WAY COST..",.."..".."."..,.........

PRIOR YEARS COST"..,.",.."..........,..,."",.,.,

$ 575,000
$ 40,000
$
$ 615,000
$ 725,000
$ 40,000
$ 765,000

TIP TOTAL COST., , . , . . . , . , . . , . . , . , . . . , . . . . , . . . , , , , , . , .

Current Construction Cost Estimate".".""...",...
Current Right of Way Cost Estimate...."""",.",..
Total Cost Estimate.,."....".""".""".,....,.,

WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X

IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT:

($ )

, (%)

TRAFFIC: CURRENT 1200 VPD; DESIGN YEAR
TTST 1% DT 4%

2100 VPD

PROPOSED TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION: 7.2-METER (24-FOOT) TRAVELWAY
PLUS 2,4-METER (8.0-FOOT)
GRASS SHOULDERS (3,4-METER/
11,O-FOOT WHERE GUARDRAIL IS
USED)

EXISTING STRUCTURE:LENGTH

61. 3
201.0

Meters WIDTH 9.0 Meters
Feet 29,5 Feet

PROPOSED STRUCTURE:

61. 0
200.0

Meters WIDTH 9.2 Meters
Feet 30 feet

COMMENTS:

PREPARED BY: Wayne fedora, P.E,

DATE 07/11/95

),33

\
To,
'--

N

\
~,.

.:::~::::::..o
~~~:~:);~
.... .".

:CI:~~:#

'/

~
~
~

';..
;..

2204

""
o
2293

,09

lli?- 3

,04
2292

,40

. . . .

.

Studied Detour Route I

~ I ~ORTH CAROLINA DEP,-\RTMEST OF
TR';"'\SPORTATrO~
- '" OIV[SIO~ OF' HIGHWAYS
~ ,. PL.;,.....~ING ,';"'\0 E:-;VffiOj','ME~IAL
~~ BR.:.....'iCH
SR 2202
BR...fDGE :'iO, 103
O\'"ER LF\-fBER RIVER
T.LP, :\0. B-3035
0 i<Jlor.1e:e~ 0.42 0 miles 0.26
I I , I

,
\

1
I

'--------- \
\ ,
'~-,
\ ~~\~~~~,~"

,./ '
// . \
../" '- -'
- ------.

'.

>' "

".I'.'j-

'-~

\
, ".../
~ . S;::::.=..:, ~

_.~-

~

"

::I.~~--~ ______..-

tI

/)
>"/ "'<'~'5'iA.Tr'..":"~
l '''",'' .,c-;,c,., ~
'-- I~ (i f :;.,,~

~t~

',.,,,,.,,,,,

JAMlS B, HUNT J R,
GOVIRN( HZ

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
1'0. BOX 25201. RAIJli,H, N,C 27(,ll.'i201

R, SAMUEL HUNT III
SI ('IUIARY

July 19, 1995

MEMORANDUM TO:

Mr. Eric Galamb
OEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor

FROM:

Wayne Fedora, P.E.
Planning and Environmental Branch

SUBJECT:

Scoping Meeting for Replacement of Bridge No, 34 on
SR 1404/1104 over Lumber River in Scotland and Hoke
Counties, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1404(3), State
Project No. 8,2590301, T.I,P. No. B-3044

The Planning and Environmental Branch held a scoping meeting on 6 June
1995 to initiate the subject project, Attached is a list of those attending.

The participants decided on one method for replacement: replace at
existing location with road closure. Traffic will be maintained on the
existing roads as shown in Figure 1. The replacement structure will be a
bridge 85 meters (278 feet) long and 7.8 meters (26 feet) wide.

The estimated construction cost is $725,000,

The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) does not recommend an
archaeological or historic architectural survey,

The Division of Environmental Management classifies the waterway as
WS-IV Swamp. The agency requested that there be no weep holes in the bridge,
especially directly over the water.

The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission requested an in-water
construction moratorium from 15 March to 15 June,

The project will require High Quality Waters erosion control measures
during construction.

The Division Eight Construction Engineer has indicated a preference for
maintaining traffic on the existing bridge.

(i)

~ July 19, 1995
Page 2

There are currently no school bus crossings at the bridge.

The project requires no special bicycle accommodations.

The current project schedule includes right-of-way beginning August
1997, and Letting for August 1998.

WF/plr

Attachments

Name

Wayne Fedora

Greg Blakeney
Jay Woolard
Ell i s Powe 11

Debbie Bevin

Jerry Snead
David Cochran

Art McMi 11 an

Don Sellers

John Taylor

Trice Lambert

Theresa Ellerby

Darin Wilder

Scoping Meeting Attendance Sheet
for 8-3044, Scotland/Hoke Counties

Department

Planning & Environmental

Planning & Environmental (T,E.A.)

Traffic Control

Structure Design
State Historic Preservation Office

Hydraulics

Roadway Design

Roadway Design
Right-of-Way

Location & Surveys

Rail Division

Program Development
Program Development

BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET

TIP PROJECT:

B-3044

DIVISION: EIGHT

t. A. PROJECT: BRZ-1404(3)

COUNTY:

SCOTLAND/HOKE

STATE PROJECT: 8,2590301

ROUTE:

SR 1404/1104

PROJECT PURPOSE:

Replace Obsolete Bridge

DESCRIPTION:

Replace Bridge No. 34 on SR 1404/1104 over
Lumber River in Scotland and Hoke Counties

PROJECT USGS QUAD SHEET: Lumberton

TIP CONSTRUCTION COST......,...,...,..,.."..."",., $ 650,000
TIP RIGHT Ot WAY COST.",.,..,....,."..,..",.,."., $ 50,000
PRIOR YEARS COST...,....,...".,.....,..".,.,...,." $

TIP TOTAL COST.".,."....".,."",..,.......,.,.". $ 700,000

CURRENT CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE,."....".,.,...,. $ 725,000
CURRENT RIGHT Ot WAY COST ESTIMATE."......."",.... $ 50,000

TOTAL COST ESTIMATE.,.,.".,.."",.....",...,.".., $ 775,000

WILL THERE BE SPECIAL tUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X

It YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT:

($ )

, (%)

TRAttIC: CURRENT 200 VPD; DESIGN YEAR
TTST 1% DT 2%

400 VPD

PROPOSED TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION: 6,6-METER (22-FOOT) TRAVELWAY
PLUS 1,8 METER (6.0-FOOT)
GRADED SHOULDERS

EXISTING STRUCTURE:LENGTH

73.2 Meters WIDTH 6.7 Meters
240.0 teet 22.0 teet

PROPOSED STRUCTURE:

85 Meters WIDTH 7.8 Meters
278 teet 26 Feet

COMMENTS:

PREPARED BY: Wayne tedora, P,E.

DATE 07/11/95

--------,

1400

.!J...l.Q

~Do
~{ .
fr;;~

/

:---;ORTH CAROLINA DEPARTME;"\;( OF
TRA..'iSPORT ATION
orVISIO:-l OF HIGHW:\ YS
PlA.,,~r.-;G ,-\.!"'D E:'NlRON?l-fE;"\;l.-\L
SRA..\'CH

'-ORTII CAROLL"A

SR I-tO-t I SR 11 O-t
BRIDGE :"i0. 3~
O\""ER LL':YIBER RIVER
T.LP. :\0. B-3 OM

t .

.

.

.

Studied DetoUr Route I

"
u

ki!c:7'le!e:s

, ~
,.0

o

miies

in
l~
;~~=-tj-:: /_4:.... '~---J .~j h --- ~~,"..:-~~F.~>~>;);>~)
. -~:~;:-~.~ :~4l.~ / _: ~~~z'~~ ~ -;-,/':-1 ::\~ : -:.: -7' ~:~ ~=_-ft_ -.J-~ ~i~~~~ .::,; '--~
1"":!-':_ -~"~ i _' -; ~'-~~'i~, I: -C;;~-"""~-" ~-f:..-',--~,..,'.;.,~~..~.
,~:~q ~rN>~~~\--~-~/-~~<~j\ ~ I~, 'td~~~;~~~J~~~~~~:~~~: I~
'~~-:-_...-...... -- ~'\ ' - ---...", -- ~i'\ '~J \, ~G::'-: ~-~---f ~.-:.- ,...,,~)
.- \~'r' ----\" .---~,' ( 1(:: ,;):-~'~-::-~' ::;: ::. ':......">
.. i:..J~ \~ :f'~'l v>_-t-0,,-,:~; r': \~ < :'!; {-; ~~.~'~' :.....-r. - ~- ~i '~~~, .'~/
;;V~ ~ l," ~~. ",... --- - \;~,- _~ :__\-;) ~,:I r.- .-'~_ ~~ ~- : '-.'~-:- ~ ~~.{!:
\ -,-' ~ ",;,.l.. ~ 11~ - '~~.', -". L " -_ ";'
, - \ \ ~ ,- l' .~ II, '.- ~- -.. I ~l-:; -"-~',., 1

\t"'G' .~::'~~._ \ ~'._"\.-L..~( :.'\ ,-;~~;. --t":"~.'. ~ I,'."--~\\~: a.;;"" I~ ...~..~......,;~",,<-,
)! ,r-_ -. .-~, ')"/1- :: :\-"'-. ': ~~ -. ",:: \~, \~ ! :'; I, "
~/; ~' -'-"-'/~----f':'f" :: -\\-:<~-~ -~ -':;, \,,_.cu._,~ ,\ :) 1101, :,) I ,
" ~ ~ ..",.-. '\ -,'-. u' ':;...,,, . ~'--f/l\\ . .,1 , ..{ ~
~'~""~\\'>~-''-'j '''~.' !: )--~'-~~:~1"~.\';: It~'~~:\~\ :"61~"5=~::: ~
;.':f' \ \~/:: . ..~..... "'-1'-- .....-:::.'\ -'," ."~"_\' I !::
1\ . ,/' """. \. "'--:::.," ,-... ~.':,,~ '.'..u.:..... \'" ..' .,: . -' - ",\ ~ 1 ',:
, " ,,\ ~\,...: \ _ \' "."", \",. _ , -c, \\\ \ 1
-\~ . \.~/2:~ :J"'~'~~ >1-/ ~~:i-(~~_I-F;.~~/;~Z,~~~u~'-~'Jj ,.;~ li-'5~ha(
, ;: r7 """. ,.'..',......" ~ !'~.~~~-...,...~.~.-: ~ - u,,'- ~~?-~\\\~..:A:.,~:~" \~( ~h
\ ~ : ,,(' \~, ".~__--._ .-H_'_ __ -- ')~~;..~-:_._ \I~:\ ,:,:,,,:"~-_..~~~::.t:,
r\ I : "', /->,,;; _ -~, - C::1~ (!,.-- c ' ...u_ ~~\ ..>-~e1lbnr..:':>~
..~ ,/ 1 ~;:'~', "'" ~ /;""?'T~-~~--::"!/f'!:? if@1~-!~--:-::-;~~~~- '\~"~ ,- (/: ~-1:'::;'::-':~~/.:&:'
r--.. I ..<.. , ~ 'I ~""---);''''''''':::; -~......'~-_--" \1'. ..' -',"""",--//-
~ ) -/.i,: ~'0\ ''-\,,' j ) -~-:.-~---~"-~." f:.:'::~-----~_.---.....-~'~-- \\ .....,.. --It"--I.o.~-~.T'd-r-~
l. Ll ~-Y-'l:~ew To~'T1",\ "\-','. ,i",. ,:,G~:h"S~;~<.,:~:":- -'~f:.~-: _-~~ ~ ~; ~-;-= \"X~'" ~urcell Cern -.::-=_.A~~ -~ ... :.~-;~
:: (.;.>",,- /"-' .'. \ -:....::~--~-_. ,; '~..,.,,-.....--.;:-:-: -:~i';: ,\\ ~':--.d:Ld,,:::_..;_--, ~
/ "}:'" l" - \ ., - - - 'f " y - -.." - -, ' ,\ , P, :;$..:~ - . -
;' . ,;,~".'C~:~,::\ I"'~' l" "" . !..:.;:..~:::-."",.,).. \J'" .~.,s=:..-",- .~~_.-"'-':'l ~~~~:~<: ""~~,~-...- ": ~.
'., _ / ;::i(' '\ },:\,~.~. ..' 'J~,:,>- {' !~;-l-':';-S:~ \~~~>:-::::~~~'~~~(i::~ ~ \ \ / \ ~ )l.;'~-~;~:;~
, ',". :i-"~ "~""" ",',... )"-=--_-~-.. \_.... -.~--_ ,,---...: --'" -II-... I~ -'s- \1 -."'...-;-'..-",
. \. '_=- I~," I.. " ,;" I.-=-"'~_'., - A--~,..--#:--_----:._~:l-=-_.;/. / I \I--~.--+-.-~

'''',~.,~.=::- 7~ ." """" -;:~'" : :?~.=2~~. ~, c.'::: --~~~~~::~ r: .f'i I'~"~~~-~"'i'
. / I -"".......... '\ "" " -~--~._. .,.- ,--"- ".=:-~'L/.-\~1 \ \......- - ,
..~....\-\. ~\:.: ..\ '. .....i:(,. /~~~-.5':-=~~-=- ~:;~-.---~_ (_-~=;:'_:;'~..~~...'_....\\\\' \,;:.~-~..:..~_;.-::,
2' . ' . . \ .. - r, -" ~ . . -, -' ft ~ . \.: , I .. , . .

') ~:".~;.y, I' '~.i'.':'4' '~": 'I')' "".. )';:-::'-:--.<.c-...:'?-:.,.r:::-l ';" - '--\\....~-:.. /:;---' \ \ ~:,-:- ~-,~~
, ('. \m-/r:!.<J~,~:." "'. ': ,; .::l-::--~....:.--to'~\'_"" --~, .\..,-.~ .{f i" ~ \ ~_.-"",;.-_
" ,e;.. ...i,.-,../,...',~. .''".-,\ , "1--/..;"''"'-~.l;..:-.1.- -_' ~"-/" ~ (
~ . " 11'.'/" .,,,, j'" "I . -'-... .,.....- - J..oJ." .: "-- ~ - - /r-- ~-:-~\'\, .~,
"j ",:'t~.. \V\ "'I ,;' I~;"_;"_-;- ~._~~. ~-;;.-..--:::::- /.......-=-----.-==-!-\\\ ~ ~ ':,
::; :,; / r ' -"',~. ,: "'~}>..!l~ '''. ,;' /\: ~::.;::-:~~ +1 ~\, /:~ 1 '-.:- .-~.'\\ 1 If) :1 _.'
"I.'~=='"'''' . '.. '~~' (1'01 =~ --" "I/~ - - --.._~- / ,. - ",.. -'- V ./ " 'r-""
1.0 I~ ......,,'"'" .~,. , ...__...."..~..\t.o......_ _-. ,...--::;:;::::: 1-""--/ ~-.... --!::--\' I .j .~~
" \ ~" II "-"', ~ ,;-:~"'~~~. :-- ~~0'~'i,: C.rurl211 !?",,U-"'" -~ '~: , - -11.- - ;: --~ '~'\' ~",""'-r' "0
:3 '0 \ "\LI~'''/' ?~<~r:~.~/ \, it~~,.~~<;~~--~-~~ ~ -~ ~-t -t....---;;,,~s---/,j{-~\ - O.f' r.:::-
~ \ \ ~J! . , \~~. k~~\Sch .~ ~ J.':- '. ~"".'0"", ;- .- -:-.: -.... 1 I ,Q,... 1_....:.'" =~.".\.~
~ /. ""'H~SCh" ),~~~;;) ~. "C ~. :::, - . I., -~... .....-'~ .. ~ 'i,a'" ._-;;:...."",,;-.;.::,,\
~".'.:' ., "J" '::.,,,,,. / '''f'''--:il''~:'~' -~~"-_.;r- ,:, "-:--\'1..... /, ~ '--.1-.......-;---:,.,u-:..
., I "<".::~, I >~ . ,,~~/ ~ \,'.'\. ./~-:........'~-:t:::;::;.\, .. .:::~~ \~ .... - ~ ~\ ...~" 1// ~\-.-- -~-::---=--...::::.
I / t.::::\ -. '--) ,'<;,,: I .,,",', ~. u - ....,..:_c<) .. . - ",,' . ,-'; II' /"'\ \ ,- - ~ '___
']r~.~"" I /t.'.. ,,,,~?"~1X:;;"<- ,,',:(."..-'. 07-,' ..'-....,.-.,. - ~\ '::>~1"\) ~ ~l.. ---~==--
'-->\"'1 /;: / ';-~'!"r-.'? _'i,;..,.;;:-_~~--+ \\,-.{,-,._,I""/'--'~\'r"SJ ~-~
"OJ, ~'Z,j' ,.,. " I /:1 i'--' ~ _<~<'- ,,' _ L,:)l _ " .--,', I - - ,- ',0 '.".~., ~
~.I '" '-' " '/ I ~"\. . ...::::-- 7.!; ':, \ .,.. . ~ "-;.-\ -".-...:- \. ./
Ii " .'''\ / .J '.110] "~.<'., ,,~- ): - ,.'.?\, _' _ - _ ' - - \ . __: '. C:::> ,"'C:-
I" . r'-'/ "" <,,::-;:-.-/' ;: ~l~ ':;, j ~~t~ C'- :,\..-'~-- ~ -,11 ' ~-_ '.\1 ':-;-:-0 ~\.~......,)a \\j
"I /~ / "',.../"> ;' .; 'I':' ~'~' I' -" "::"'" '-..---E '~.. I :;i-..5d ~.: ~)) ,- ~..,:
~ ! II ' ' I : ',' , "- "=-- \. ~" . - /... 1101 ,,-,,_
" ,J ( I'" ",', :',' -, - r:';;;. '\ ~', '~n r'\:'.~ ~>"'_':;'::'-
I"~" /"'\"-..." I' 2"'/0--- 0--_;'- ,~~~\.---,--:-!i -'-'(~ ~..~.~,;_~-:;.:-
::;1, " , '. ,=-"',, . =-~ '''-., "~'\ ....... \ -...J rJ, r l' / ~ -. -
I,~~: ,-., ':'o~j:...__. ~<-,-,.- ~,:~~ -~-~~~.- J'\\\--'::-"'~\ ." ' ~'S3\;"~'-;~-;':':

~

'"
:-:\
'...' '.\.
-. _.~
~-=:_~\
... i

--.... -

\ /1~~~ \,:... ~ ~~ -~ - ,:
\ : -.- .. -- ~~ =-~- - -"
\ "'!
\ \! .
\r"
)
I J

"-"'._~
.... -:- ~ - '.' " '" ~
"J- - '"

~t!;fl::~ '

'0". ~..r -

:~~-/~i.r-\ ~

.;"

. -: -, \
M!.- -.:_:

+-

- :-
-- ,/

-~ /

"

\
I rl

\.. j
,,' ~~ YJ ->>
r-_- .:.

~~\~~\~:~](~~_.

" ,-~,. '.- .~ - ,.-
, , "', \I~-,:~: ?2t~,('0:~:~';,__
",'~'.~;,~~rr~5~~~~~ (/?I-
"\ ,., 'l.. l,
!: -, v<--~~'. '\~ \ ';'" r-.
"," s-. - . <;.--i;. '---...... '---', i..'....
~.,/~~.;:-~!;~-:~---:,\ -> .': ':""~> ....~
"'. 1-....- - -]/1- ...... 'J r.. j ',' . ,,"
,,/., .' - )~-- ....-- ~(r .......... r' ~, ~,. . '-
:::"~'~~"--:~ ~~~~~,\ ~:..~<,:.,~,,: -;<~>;<"~,'
"1- ." \, ~< -- -j~\,: r-15~ .' .. 'I' -.~- "
\~, ,~-~ - ~----.- --:'......- -1 /," ~ "i>" ",/-'; i'1<"''''~'' ,:,
"~ ": ',\>:-~.-;.-c.-_""~t~~ ,"..,~' ,<"'~;.'l~{~ ~...---;
~ '-'-:-.I~~~ ~ -c--.-';-i~=~~- ~:",: /,:/-:,-:- ,: !I ,I. /r--.. ;-,/ .

ii::....;.:~'

H.Jt::~.~:_",,_, '.':'~.'."".' .

. .~ - ",.

..' ~~-:~.;,..-~ '> I
~

"y-'- ~- "'.-.:.:i..l:-

I '::": ~',' -'- - .-:/ "....J :~'"
, ... ... ~' ~.
..j.......;\:...".. i "."""

c.0--

_...r~':.;. ;

~~/

I ~~~,::-
jr-.O::---""

I')"~

..'
. .-----------::-..II'~-"',:
~===~= =~,,-:..,I
:---~-i~_-o:.~ ~-::::.:;.-
/- .-
I
I'

1

_'\

:i
!

Gro'

,~
~

I',"

~

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Q 7 07 8 4
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION"'

JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR

P,O, BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N,C. 27611-5201

GARlAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY

September 10, 1997

.401 ~S~'Et?".' iC.'
~"... '.'. 1

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890

ATTN.: Mr. CliffWinefordner
Chief, South Section

.',..... .
"' \;,
SEp - vt::{;
c4'o//) IS
.7)11. 1.9.
~,. ')- :'9;>
~/,
~8"
~8

Dear Sir:

Subject:

Robeson County, Replacement of Bridge No. 103 over the Lumber
River on SR 2202, Federal Project No. BRSTP-2202(1), State Project
No. 8.2461201, T.I.P. No. B-3035.

Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. Bridge No 103 will be replaced at its existing location with a bridge 12.0 meters
wide (40 feet) and 61 meters (200 feet) long. Traffic will be maintained on existing
secondary roads during construction. Construction of the proposed project will impact
approximately 0.19 hectares (0.48 acres) of jurisdictional wetland communities.

The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical
Exclusion" in accordance with 23 77 . 15(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate
requesting an individual permit, t propose t proceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR Appe ix A (B-23). The provisions of Section 330.4 and
Appendix A (C) of these regul lions will be ollowed in the construction of the project.

We anticipate a 401 General Certl Ion 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 Water Quality, for their review.

*

t

2

If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon
at 733-7844 Ext. 307.

~

.p

H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch

HFV /p lr

cc: w/attachment
Mr. Ernest Jahnke, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Kelly Barger, P .E. Program Development Branch
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William 1. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. W. S. Vamedoe, P.E., Division 6 Engineer
Ms. Gail Grimes, P & E Project Planning Engineer

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Robeson County
SR 2202
Bridge No. 103 over Lumber River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-2202(1)
State Project No. 8.2461201
T.I.P. No. B-3035

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AND
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

AND

N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DNISION OF mGHW A YS

. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch

-#Ef-q (p
DATE

~/' LtZt/~
f>d."Nich . s L. iliaf, P.E.
, TIivision Administrator, FHW A

/p/Jt>!f~
DATE

I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Robeson County
SR 2202
Bridge No. 103 over Lumber River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-2202(1)
State Project No. 8.2461201
T.I.P. No. B-3035

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AND
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL

December, 1996

Documentation Prepared By Ko & Associates, P.C.

o(lQ~ /~I

Lisa Hilliard, P.E.
Project Manager - Ko & Associates

~--~
'~.:t t~\ (", '" -"Ill.
~~">f~\\~ '\~\,E:,,~/RiOi)~~~
~/ _'~~'-';'~t:-'~~~'J " '_:.>.-...."/_;}/>_ ,;OJ,
~/ ,.-.i:', . "',,' :>'f',',~, "!.'.:1!1f) _ '-, 'X--:'"*' '1./~'
.Ii:'" . (~~~ ',~\ "'-/l. "";.,;/' t~\
l! ,0 ' ;"~
1'1 'QI(',JI,1 '< ~
~f,' U ,,,:,', ',". ~ )~4
o c
~ 'i 11'r'f':,~t) 0
'f1 1\ II ,)'.,of U' (10

, "\, ,ft.~,,(('~~ 1"/'
" ':"': t'i.' ')1 ~~~~, ('f.'
\"" ,.GN,."." ,~...J)
_ ....,4 :,' - '._ ,_ r' r~ ~ r~",''-I.,
~'. ~S ;.m \.\~'<:.,.,..~
......,'" ,,' . ...~' - ~~,,\
.fq"l!ll<<nu~ Ii~ ij ~gli ,~,,~~''''i.';

For North Carolina Department of Transportation

L. Gail Grimes, P.E., Unit Head
Consultant Engineering Unit

Philip S, Harris, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Robeson County
SR 2202
Bridge No, 103 over Lumber River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-2202(1)
State Project No. 8.2461201
T.I,P. No. B-3035

Bridge No.1 03 is included in the NCDOT 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program. The
location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is
classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".

I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS

1. All standard procedures and measures, including NCDOT's Best Manaiement Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters, will be implemented, as applicable, to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts,

2. The location and installation of any required deck drains will be determined during final
design stages.

II, SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Bridge No.1 03 will be replaced in its existing location with a bridge. During construction traffic will
be detoured on SR 2203, SR 2289, and NC 72.

The estimated cost for the proposed improvement is $1,082,500 . The estimated cost of the project,
as shown in the NCDOT 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program, is $761,000 including
$36,000 for right-of-way and $725,000 for construction.

III, EXISTING CONDITIONS

SR 2202 is classified as an urban minor arterial in the Statewide Functional Classification System.
The proposed project occurs'in rural Robeson County approximately 1 kilometer (0.6 mi) south of
the city of Lumberton on SR 2202. Land use within the study corridor includes urban residential
interspersed with natural vegetation.

Near the bridge, SR 2202 has a 6.1 meter (20 ft) pavement width with 1.8 meter (6 ft) shoulders. The
roadway approaches slope up toward the bridge. The horizontal alignment is tangent on the bridge
with a 215 meter radius (8 degree) curve approximately 45 meters (150 ft) from the bridge to the
south. The north approach consists of a 480 meter radius (3.5 degree) curve approximately 30 meters

(100 ft) from the end of the bridge. The roadway is situated approximately 5.8 meters (19 ft) above
the creek bed.

The traffic volumes were 1200 vehicles per day (vpd) for 1995 and projected to be 2100 vpd for the
design year 2020. The volumes include I % truck-tractor semi-trailer (TIST) and 4% dual-tired (DT)
vehicles. The speed limit is not posted and assumed to be 88 kilometers per hour (55 mph),

The existing bridge was built in 1950 (Figure 3). The superstructure consists of five steel I-girder
spans. Bridge deck construction is a cast in place concrete floor deck with an asphalt wearing
surface. The substructure consists of steel pile end bents and interior bents with reinforced concrete
caps.

The overall length of the bridge is 61.3 meters (201 ft). Clear roadway width is 8.0 meters (26.1 ft).
The posted weight limit is 27,216.0 kilograms (30 tons) for single vehicles and legal gross weight for
tractor trailer trucks.

Bridge No, 103 has a sufficiency rating of 18.1, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.

No accidents were reported in the vicinity of the bridge during the period from March I, 1992 to
February 28, 1995,

A sanitary sewer line crosses SR 2202 north of the bridge. Telephone lines cross the stream west of
the bridge. There are no utilities attached to the bridge.

School buses cross the bridge a total of four times daily.

IV. ALTERNATIVES

Two alternatives were studied for replacing Bridge No.103. Each alternate consists ofreplacing the
existing bridge with a new bridge having a clear roadway width of 12.0 meters (40 ft) and a length
of 61 meters (200 ft). The approach roadway will consist of a 7.2 meter (24 ft) travelway with 2.4
meter (8 ft) shoulders.

The alternate alignments studied are shown in Figure 2 and are as follow:

Alternate A with on-site detour: involves replacing the bridge in its existing location. The roadway
grade would be approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge grade. A design speed of 100
kilometers per hour (60 mph) would be provided. Temporary, on-site detours were considered west
(Temporary Detour I) and east (Temporary Detour 2) of the existing bridge, Based on a benefit-cost
ratio of 0.52:1, an on-site detour is not reasonable (see Section VII).

Alternate A with off-site detour (Recommended): involves replacing the bridge in its existing location.

2

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Traffic would be detoured on SR 2203, SR 2289, and NC 72 during construction (see Figure 1). The
roadway grade would be approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge grade. A design
speed of 100 kilometers per hour (60 mph) would be provided.

Alternate B: involves replacing the bridge approximately 15 meters (50 ft) east of the existing
roadway alignment. Traffic would be maintained on the existing bridge during construction, The
roadway grade would be approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge grade. A design
speed of 80 kilometers per hour (45 mph) would be provided, requiring a design exception. One
dwelling is near the proposed right-of-way and could be affected if the septic lines are involved.

The No-Build or "do-nothing" alternative was also considered but would eventually necessitate
closure of the bridge. This is not desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 2202.

Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that rehabilitation of
the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.

V. ESTIMATED COST

The estimated costs of the alternatives studied, based on current prices, are as follow:

Alternate A Alternate K Alternate B
with on-site with off-site
detour detour
.. (Recommended)
Structure Removal $35,462.05 $35,462.05 $35,462.05
Structure $512,400.00 $512,400.00 $512,400.00
Roadway Approaches $138,840.00 $138,840.00 $371,940.00
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $228,297.95 $228,297.95 $295,197.95
Engineering and Contingencies $135,000.00 $135,000.00 $185,000.00
Right-of-Way / Const. Easement / $32,500.00 $32,500.00 $36,500.00
Util.
SUBTOTAL $1,082,500.00 $1,082,500.00 $1,436,500.00
Temporary On-Site Detour $550,500.00 NA NA
TOTAL $1,633,000.00 $1,082,500.00 $1,436,500.00

3

VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS

Bridge No. 103 will be replaced in its existing location with a new bridge having a clear roadway
width of 12.0 meters (40 ft) and a length of61 meters (200 ft). Traffic will be detoured on SR 2203,
SR 2289, and NC 72 during construction, a distance of 3.6 kilometers (2.2 mi). The design speed is
100 kilometers per hour (60 mph).

The Division Office concurs with the recommended improvements.

VII. TRAFFIC DETOUR

The Division Engineer concurs that traffic can be detoured on existing roads during the construction
period. A twelve month road closure period is anticipated, The off-site detour roadway and bridges
are adequate to accommodate affected traffic during the construction period.

A road user analysis was performed for detouring traffic on existing roads based on 1200 vpd and
an average 00.6 kilometers (2.2 mi) of indirect iona 1 travel utilizing SR 2203, SR 2289, and NC 72
(See Figure 1). The detour route will involve an at-grade railroad crossing at SR 2289 and an at-
grade railroad crossing at NC 72. The crossing at SR 2289 has a flasher but neither crossing currently
has gates, There are no other suitable, off-site detour routes available in the immediate area. The cost
of additional travel would be approximately $286,000 during the twelve month construction period.
The estimated cost of providing an on-site detour is $550,500, resulting in a benefit-cost ratio of
0.52: 1. This ratio does not indicate justification to maintain traffic on-site during the construction
period.

VIII, NATURAL RESOURCES

Methods

Material and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a number of
sources including the applicable U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute quadrangle mapping
(Southeast Lumberton, Northwest Lumberton, NC), U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
(formerly Soil Conservation Service) soils information (USDA 1978) and 1994 aerial photography
(scale 1 :1200) furnished by NCDOT.

The principal investigator for"natural resources was Kevin Markham with Environmental Services,
Inc, Mr. Markham received his B.S. and M.S, degrees in Marine Biology from the University of
North Carolina, Wilmington. He has eight years of experience in coastal ecosystems evaluations,
wildlife surveys, wetland delineations, mitigation planning, and threatened and endangered species
Issues.

The site was visited on April 3, 1996. Communities likely to be impacted by proposed improvements
were walked and visually surveyed for important features, Surveys were conducted within a study

4

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

corridor approximately 91.4 meters (300 ft) in width, symmetrical to the centerline of each alignment.
However, impact calculations are based on the approximate right-of-way and temporary construction
easements. Special concerns evaluated in the field included potential habitat for protected species,
wetlands, and water quality protection for the Lumber River.

Plant community descriptions were based on a classification system utilized by the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community
classifications were modified to better reflect field observations, Vascular plant names follow
nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968). Jurisdictional areas were identified using the three
parameter approach (h)drophytic vegetation, hydric soils, wetland hydrology) following U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were
characterized according to a classification scheme established by Cowardin et al (1979). Habitats
used by terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms, as well as expected population distributions, were
determined through field observations, evaluation of available habitat, and supportive documentation
(Martof et _ai, 1980; Webster et al. 1985; Menhinick 1991; Hamel 1992). Recreational fishing
potential was obtained from Fish (1968). Water quality information for area stream and tributaries
was derived from available sources (DEM 1989, DEM 1993). Quantitative sampling was not
undertaken to support existing data.

A USFWS listing of federal protected species with ranges which extend into Robeson County was
obtained prior to the field investigation. NHP records documenting presence of federal- or state-
listed species were consulted before commencing the field investigation.

Physiography and Soils

Robeson County is within the Coastal Plain physiographic province of North Carolina. The
geological location of the study corridor is within the Black Creek Formation. The landscape is
characteristic of Coastal Plain river systems, with broad interstream flats and gently rolling
topography. Elevations within the study corridor range between approximately 30.5 m and 33.5
meters (100 ft and 110 ft).

There are three soil types within the study corridor, the hydric Bibb soils (Typic Fluvaquents) and
the non-hydric Pactolus loamy sand (Aquic Quartzipsamments) and Johns sandy loam (Aquic
Hapludults) (USDA 1978),

The Bibb series is a nationally listed hydric soil which is nearly level, poorly drained soil found on
flood plains, having formed in recent alluvium (USDA 1991). Permeability is moderately rapid with
a low shrink-swell potential. The seasonal high water table is at or near the surface. The Pactolus
series is a nearly level, moderately well drained soil found on uplands and stream terraces.
Permeability is rapid, and shrink-swell potential is low. The seasonal high water table is
approximately 0,8 meter (2.5 ft) below the soil surface, The Johns series is a nearly level, moderately
well drained to somewhat poorly drained soil found on stream terraces. Permeability is moderate,
and shrink-swell potential is low. The seasonal high water table is 0.5 meter (1.5 ft) below the

5

surface, Hydric inclusions may be present with the area mapped as the Johns series,

WATER RESOURCES

Waters Impacted

The study corridor is located within the Lumber River Drainage Basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit
03040203), Bridge No.l03 crosses the Lumber River approximately 76 kilometers (47 mi)
downstream from its origin and approximately 42 kilometers (26 mi) upstream from the North
Carolina-South Carolina border. This section of the Lumber River has been assigned Stream Index
Number 14-(13) by the N. C. Division of Enwonmental Management (OEM).

Best UsalJe Classification and Water Quality

Classiiicatiqns are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin. The Lumber River
has a best usage classification of C Sw (OEM 1993). A classification of C indicates that appropriate
uses include aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and
agriculture. Secondary recreation refers to human body contact with waters on an infrequent or
incidental basis. The Sw designation is used for swamp waters characterized by low velocities, low
pH, low dissolved oxygen levels, and high organic content.

No High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS-I, or WS-ll waters
occur within 1.6 kilometers (1 mi) of the study corridor. The Lumber River is designated a North
Carolina Natural and Scenic River, but not a national Wild and Scenic River. The Natural River
designation indicates a segment of free-flowing river and adjacent lands that are relatively free of
anthropogenic disturbances and generally inaccessible except by trail. The Scenic River designation
indicates a segment of river that is relatively free of anthropogenic disturbances, with primitive and
underdeveloped adjacent lands, and that is accessible in places by roads.

There are three pennitted discharge sites located on the Lumber River in close proximity to the study
corridor. West Point Pepperell, with a permitted flow of2.5 mgd, is located within 8 kilometers (5
mi) upstream of the study area. Alpha Cellulose and Lumberton waste water treatment plant, with
permitted flows of 1.6 mgd and 10.0 mgd, are located within 8 kilometers (5 mi) downstream of the
study area (OEM 1991).

The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long term trends in water
quality at fixed monitoring sites by sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrates (OEM 1991).
Species richness and overall biomass are reflections of water quality. There are three BMAN special
study sites located in the Lumber River near the study corridor. BMAN special study site 7 is located
5 kilometers (3 mi) upstream. from the study corridor, This site received a bioclassiiication rating of
Excellent. BMAN special study site 8 is located above the Lumberton waste water treatment plant
(8 kilometers (5 mi) downstream. from the study corridor. This site received a bioclassification rating

6

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

of Good-Fair. BMAN special study site 9 is located below the Lumberton waste water treatment
plant, approximately 15 kilometers (9 mi) downstream from the study corridor. This site received
a bioclassification rating of Poor (DEM 1991).

Stream Characteristics

The channel on the Lumber River within the study corridor is broad and deep, measuring
approximately 36.6 meters (120 ft) in width with a depth of approximately 4.6 meters (15 ft). The
chatmel meanders slightly within the project boundaries, Banks slopes within the study corridor are
gradual ranging from 0 to 0.9 meter (0 to 3 ft) in height. The banks are composed of soil and rocks,
with grass and forest vegetation present. The channel substrate is composed of clay with silt
coverings. Organic debris within the channel includes stumps, trees, branches, and leaves. Aquatic
vegetation is limited, consisting of emergent species, Flow was moderate and exhibited low turbidity
at the time of this survey.

Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources

Short-term impacts to water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, can be anticipated from
construction-related activities. Adverse impacts will be minimized by implementing the NCDOT lksi
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters (BMPs), as applicable, during construction,

No adverse long-term impacts to water resources are expected to result from proposed
improvements. The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of present flow rates
thereby protecting stream integrity.

BIOTIC RESOURCES

Plant Communities

Three distinct plant communities were identified within the study corridor. Two communities,
identified as bottomland hardwood forest and wet hardwood forest, represent natural plant
communities. The remaining community, identified as urban/disturbed land, represents those areas
within the study corridor where disturbance has altered the natural vegetative cover. The plant
communities are described below.

Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Wet areas found on the lower parts of the floodplain exhibit bottomland hardwood vegetation. The
canopy is dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum), water oak (Quercus nigra), bald cypress
(Taxodium distichum), and river birch (Betula nigra). The midstory/shrub layer is characterized by
red maple and water oak saplings. Yellow jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens) and greenbrier
(Smilax rotundifolia) are found in heavy concentrations throughout this site, and cane (Arundinarla
gigantea) is found on the slightly raised areas.

7

Wet Hardwood Forest
Wet areas found on the relatively higher parts of the floodplain support hardwood vegetation, The
canopy is dominated by red maple, water oak, river birch, bald cypress, loblolly pine (Pinus taeda),
and American sycamore (Platanus occidenta/is). The midstorylshrub layer is characterized by red
maple and water oak saplings, Yellow jessamine and greenbrier are found in heavy concentrations
throughout this community, with cane found on the slightly raised areas.

Upland UrbanIDisturbed Land
This cornnnmity includes residential areas, roads and roadside margins, powerline right-of-ways, and
areas where natural vegetation has been removed or altered. Successional grasses and herbs typify
these areas. Early successional vegetation in residential areas may be supplemented by planted
ornamental species.

Anticipated !mpacts to Plant Communities

Anticipated impacts to plant communities are estimated based on the amount of each plant community
present within the proposed right-of-way and temporary construction easements. Construction of
either proposed alternative or temporary detour is not expected to result in substantial adverse
impacts to the plant communities within the study corridor. A summary of plant community impacts
which will result from construction activities is presented below.

Table 1. Estimated plant community impacts.
PLANT COMMUNITY ESTIMATED IMPACTS
in hectares (acres in parentheses)
Alternative A Alternative B Temporary Temporary
Detour I Detour 2
Bottomland Hardwood 0.14 (0.36) 0.34 (0,84) 0.02 (0.06) 0.17 (0.43)
Forest
Wet Hardwood Forest 0.05 (0.12) 0.00 (0.00) 0.21 (0.52) 0.00 (0.00)
Upland Urban/Disturbed 0.18 (0.44) 0.47 (1.17) 0.06 (0.15) 0.06 (0.15)
TOT AL: 0.37 (0,92) 0,81 (2,01) 0.29 (0.73) 0,23 (0,58)

Impacts to plant communities as a result of Alternative A will impact approximately 0.44 hectare
(1.09 ac) fewer acres than Alternative B. The additional impacts from Alternative B will occur in
upland urban/disturbed land and bottomland hardwood forest.

The off-site detour alternative is not expected to result in impacts to plant communities due to the
utilization of existing roads. Temporary on-site detour alternatives exhibit a minor variation in
potential impacts to the natural communities. Potential impacts for either detour alternative are nearly

8

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

evenly divided between upland urban/disturbed land and natural communities. The detour alternatives
differ in the distribution of impacts to natural cormmmities, with Temporary Detour 2 impacting more
of the bottomland hardwood forest and less of the wet hardwood forest than Temporary Detour 1.

Wildlife

Terrestrial

The study corridor consists of a wetland forest corridor adjacent to the Lumber River surrounded by
residential and disturbed areas. Expected mammalian species include marsh rabbit (Sylvilagus
palustris), golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttalli), bobcat (Felis rufus), gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), and white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus). Expected avifaunal species include wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina),
prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria citrea), yellow-throated warbler (Dendroica dominica), great
crested fly~atcher (Myiarchus crinitus), summer tanager (Piranga rubra), yellow-billed cuckoo
(Coccyzus americanus), and barred owl (Strix van'a).

Aquatic

The Lumber River is considered excellent for fishing in this area (Fish 1968). Expected recreational
fishing species in this system include redfin pickerel (Esox americanus), chain pickerel (Esox niger),
wannouth (Lepomis gulosus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), yellow perch (Percaflavescens), and
largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). Nongame aquatic species expected within the study
corridor include species such as golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), coastal shiner (Notropis
petersoni), and ironcolor shiner (Notropis chalybaeus).

Semiaquatic reptile and amphibian species are expected to be common in this area. Expected or
observed species include eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), marbled salamander (Ambystoma
opacum), southern dusky salamander (Desmognathus auriculatus), southern cricket frog (Acris
gryllus), green treefrog (Hyla cinerea), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), pickerel frog (Rana palustris),
southern leopard frog (Rana utricularia), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), mud snake
(Farancia abacura), redbelly water snake (Nerodia erythrogaster), eastern ribbon snake
(Thamnophis sauritus), and cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus). NHP records indicate a sighting
of American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) approximately 0.5 kilometers (0.3 mi) upstream
from the study corridor.

Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife

Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, the proposed bridge replacement
will not result in substantial loss or displacement of known terrestrial or aquatic animal populations.
Maintenance of regular flow and stream integrity will minimize potential down-stream impacts to
aquatic habitat by the proposed bridge replacement. In addition, permanent and temporary impacts
to downstream habitat from increased sediment during construction will be minimized the

9

implementation of the NCDOT Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters,

SPECIAL TOPICS

Waters ofthe United States

Surface waters within the embankments of the Lumber River are subject to jurisdictional
consideration under Section 404 as "waters of the United States" (33 CFR 328.3). Within the study
corridor, the Lumber River exhibits characteristics of riverine, lower perennial, unconsolidated
bottom, permanently flooded waters (R2UBH).

Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U,S.C. 1344) are defined
by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of
hydrology at or near the surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season (DOA 1987).

--
Based on this three parameter approach, jurisdictional wetlands occur within the floodplain of the
Lumber River within the study corridor. Two wetland types have been identified within the study
corridor, corresponding to the bottomland hardwood forest and wet hardwood forest plant
communities.

The bottomland hardwood forest exhibits characteristics of palustrine forested, broad-leaved
deciduous, seasonally flooded wetlands (PFO 1 C). The wet hardwood forest exhibits characteristics
of palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous/needle leaved evergreen, seasonally flooded wetlands
(pFOl/4C). Wetland hydrology in both communities is maintained primarily by seasonal inundation
from river channel flow.

Table 2. Estimated impacts to wetlands.
WETLAND ESTIMATED IMPACTS
TYPE in hectares (acres in parentheses)
Alternative A Alternative B Temp. Detour I Temp. Detour 2
PFO 1 C 0.14 (0.36) 0.34 (0.84) 0.02 (0.06) 0.17 (0.43)
PFO l/4C 0.05 (0.12) 0.00 (0.00) 0.21 (0.52) 0.00 (0.00)
TOTAL: 0,19 (0.48) 0.34 (0.84) 0.23 (0,58) 0.17 (0.43)

Impacts to wetlands as a result of Alternative A will total 0.15 hectare (0.36 ac) less than Alternative
B. These two alternatives vary in the distribution of impacts to the wetland types present within the
study corridor; Alternative A impacts both forested wetland types present and Alternative B avoids
impacts to wet hardwood forest. Bridging of the Lumber River will minimize impacts to surface
waters.

10

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Temporary on-site detour alternatives will each impact similar amounts of wetlands, but will vary in
distnbution of impacts. Temporary Detour Alternative 2 will impact mostly bottomland hardwood
forest (0.17 hectare), while Temporary Detour Alternative 1 will impact mostly wet hardwood forest
(0.21 hectare). Impacts associated with detour alternatives are temporary.

Permits

Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands are anticipated from project construction. In accordance with
provisions of Section 404 of the CW A, a permit will be required from the COE for the discharge of
dredge or fill material 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 from the proposed project. This permit authorizes activities undertaken, assisted,
authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or part, by another federal agency or department
where:

(1) that agency or department has determined pursuant to the council on environmental quality
regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy
Act that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither individually
nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment; and,

(2) the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or department's
application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination.

This project will also require a 401 Water Quality General Certification from the DEM prior to the
issuance of a Nationwide Permit. Section 40 I of the CW A requires that the state issue or deny water
quality certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to
Waters of the United States.

Final decisions concerning applicable permits rests with the COE.

Navigable waters supporting significant interstate or international commerce traffic are subject to a
Coast Guard Bridge Permit in accordance with Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Bridge
No.103 over the Lumber River is not presently listed by the Coast Guard as a bridge over navigable
waters; however, bridges on the Lumber River upstream and downstream of Bridge No.1 03 are listed
as bridges over navigable waters (USDT 1984). Navigability is determined by the Coast Guard on
a case-by-case basis. The Coast Guard has detennined that a Coast Guard permit will not be required
for this project (see Appendix).

Mitigation

Compensatory mitigation is not proposed for this project.

11

PROTECTED SPECIES

Federal Protected Species

Species with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), proposed endangered, and
proposed threatened are protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The following federal protected species are listed for Robeson County (August
23, 1996 USFWS list):

Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) - E
American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) - T(S/ A)

Red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) - Primary nest sites for RCWs include open pine stands greater
than 60 y~ of age with little or no mid-story development. Foraging habitat is comprised of open
pine or pine/mixed hardwood stands 30 years of age or older (Henry 1989). NHP records indicate
that RCWs have been documented at three sites within 8.0 kilometers (5.0 mi) of the study corridor.
These three sites are located approximately 8.0 kilometers (5.0 mi) southeast of the study corridor,
approximately 7 kilometers (4.5 mi) northeast of the study corridor, and approximately 6.4
kilometers (4 mi) northeast of the study corridor. No suitable habitat for RCWs is found within the
study corridor.

This project will not affect RCWs due to the absence of suitable nesting habitat (stand-sized pine or
pine-hardwood forest containing pines greater than 60 years) and foraging habitat (pine or pine-
hardwood forest containing pines greater than 30 years).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT

Michaux's sumac - Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent, deciduous, rhizomatous shrub, that
grows in disturbed areas where competition is reduced by periodic fire or other disturbances, and may
grow along roadside margins or utility right-of-ways. In this area, Michaux's sumac appears to prefer
clay soil derived from mafic rocks or sandy soil derived from granite (Weakley 1993). NHP records
indicate that this species has not been documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the study
corridor.

This project is not expected to affect Michaux's sumac because roadside margins within the study
corridor are regularly maintained and do not provide habitat for Michaux's sumac.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT

American alligator - American alligator is listed as threatened based on the similarity in appearance
to other federally-listed crocodilians; however, there are no other crocodilians within North Carolina.
American alligators can be found in a variety of freshwater to estuarine aquatic habitats includingnswamp forests, marshes, streams and canals, and ponds and lakes.

NHP records indicate a sighting of American alligator approximately 0.5 kilometers (0.3 mi) upstream
from the study corridor. Potential habitat for American alligator exists within the study corridor.
Construction activities may temporarily displace any American alligators in the vicinity; however, no

12

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

long-term impact to American alligator is anticipated as a result of this project.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT

Federal species of concern - The August 23, 1996 USFWS list also includes a category of species
designated as "Federal species of concern" (FSC). The FSC designation provides no federal
protection for the species listed. NHP files do not document any FSC within the study corridor. The
following are listed as FSC for Robeson County:

Common Name
Rafinesque's big-eared bat
Bachman's sparrow
Southern hognose snake
Carolina gopher frog
Awned meadowbeauty
Bog spicebllSh
Caro lina bo gmint
Dwarf burhead
Georgia indigo-bush
Sandhills milkvetch
Venus flytrap

Scientific Name Potential Habitat
Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) rafinesquii N
Aimophila aestiva/is N
Heterodon simus N
Rana capito capito N
Rhexia aristosa N
Lindera subcoriacea N
Macbridea caro/iniana Y
Echinodorus parvulus Y
Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana N
Astragalus michauxii N
Dionaea muscipula N

State Protected Species

Plant and animal species which the state lists as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern
(SC) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et
seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202.12 et seq.). NHP records
indicate that no state-listed species are known to occur within 2.4 kilometers (1.5 mi) of the study
corridor. Since no state-listed species have been documented in the study corridor, no impacts on
state-listed species are expected as a result of this project.

IX. CULTURAL RESOURCES

This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that for federally
funded, licensed, or permitted projects, having an effect on properties listed in or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an
opportunity to comment.

One property over fifty years of age is located within the area of potential effect (APE). This property
was evaluated and determined to be not eligible for the National Register, In a concurrence form
dated May 9, 1996 the Federal Highway Administration, NCDOT, and the North Carolina State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred that there are no properties, including Bridge
No.1 03, in the area of potential effect (APE) listed in or eligible for the National Register (see
Appendix for Concurrence Form).

13

In their Apri122, 1996 letter, the SHPO stated that there are no known archaeological sites in the
proposed project area and it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may be eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places will be affected. They recommended no archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with this project (see Appendix for SHPO letter). Therefore,
the NCDOT has not conducted nor will conduct any archaeological work in connection with this
project.

Since there are no properties either listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
within the APE, no further compliance with Section 106 is required.

X. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

The project is expected to have an overall positive impact by replacing a potentially unsafe bridge.
Inconvenience to motorists will be negligible since traffic volumes are low and other connecting
roadways ll!. the immediate vicinity are available.

The project is considered a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and insignificant
environmental consequences.

The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.

The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulations. No significant
change in existing land use is expected to result from replacement of the bridge.

No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. No relocatees are expected with
implementation of the proposed alternative.

No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.

The Lumber River is designated as a Natural and Scenic River and this project is subject to Section
4(f), There are no other publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges
of national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.

Since the project will consist. of replacing an existing bridge in its existing location, the Farmland
Protection Policy Act does not apply.

This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the regional
emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.

Noise levels could increase during demolition but will be temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by
burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the
North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC
2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise of Title
23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772 and for air quality (1990 Clean Air Act

14

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act) and no additional reports are required.

An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina
Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no underground
storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.

Robeson County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The bridge is
located in a Detailed Study Area. The Flood Boundary and Floodway Map is included in the
Appendix. This map indicates the limits ofthe 100-year and the SOD-year floodplains as well as the
I DO-year floodway. Since the proposed bridge will be an in-kind replacement, it is not anticipated that
this project will have a significant adverse impact on the existing floodplain and floodway nor on the
associated flood hazard to the adjacent properties and buildings.

On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental effects
will result from implementation of the project.

XI, PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(0 EVALUATION AND APPROVAL

The Lumber River is designated by the State of North Carolina as a Natural and Scenic River.
N.C.G.S. 113A-44 places restrictions on projects that may have direct and adverse effects on the
designated river segment and adjacent land. Such projects include dams, reservoirs, water conduits,
and transmission lines. In addition, because of this state designation, a 4(f) statement is required
before project work can begin.

Since this project necessitates the crossing of the Lumber River, a Natural and Scenic River and
meets the criteria set forth in the Federal Register, December 23, 1986, a programmatic Section 4(f)
evaluation satisfies the requirements of Section 4(f).

The following alternatives which avoid use of the 4(f) property have been fully evaluated: (a) do
nothing; (b) improve the highway without using the adjacent public park; and (c) build an improved
facility on new location without using the publicly owned public park. These alternatives were not
found to be feasible and prudent.

All possible planning to minimize harm to the Lumber River has been incorporated into this project.
The officials having jurisdiction over the Section 4(f) property have agreed, in writing, with the
assessment of impacts resulting from the use of the Section 4(f) property and with the mitigation
measures to be provided (see Appendix).

Mitigation measures include the following:

a) Before construction begins, the Division Engineer will insure that "Bridge Construction
Ahead" signs are placed at the boat access area off SR 2202 on the upstream and downstream
sides of the bridge.

15

b) The Lumber River channel will be kept open to boating traffic during construction. Efforts
to maintain as wide a channel opening as possible during construction shall be made.

c) The locations of the new bridge piers shall be designed as much as possible so as not to
obstruct river traffic.

d) If pier footing(s) which are placed in the channel come within (3) three feet of the water's
surface, fins will be installed to indicate the presence of the footing( s) in order to protect
boats and the footing(s).

e) All restoration and landscaping of disturbed areas will be accomplished by incorporating only
native species.

Approval of the programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation by the Federal Highway Administrator is
included in !he Appendix of this document.

16

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

REFERENCES

Cowardin, L.M" V, Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe.1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. USFWS/OBS -79/31. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U,S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.

Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Tech.
Rpt, Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 100 pp.

Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1989. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient
Network (BMAN) Water Quality Review 1983-1987. North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 193 pp.

Division of Environmental Management (DEM) 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality in
North Car~!ina Streams: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data Base and Long Term Changes in Water
Quality, 1983-1990. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Water Quality Section, Raleigh.

Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Classifications and Water Quality Standards
Assigned to the Waters ofthe Lumber River Basin. North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh.

Fish, F.F. 1968. A Catalog of the Inland Fishing Waters of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Division of Inland Fisheries, Raleigh. 312 pp:

Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,
Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.

Henry, V.G. 1989. Guidelines for Preparation of Biological Assessments and Evaluations for the
Red-cockaded Woodpecker. U.S. Department ofthe Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast
Region, Atlanta, GA 13 pp.

Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of
the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 264 pp.

Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.

Radford, AE., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.

Schafale, M.P. and AS. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 325 pp.

17

u. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1978. Soil Survey of Robeson County, North Carolina.
Soil Conservation Service. 69 pp.

U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States. Soil
Conservation Service, Miscellaneous Publication 1491.

U,S. Department of Transportation (USDT). 1984. Bridges over Navigable Waters of the United
States: Atlantic Coast. United States Coast Guard, Washington, DC. 216 pp.

Weakley, A. S. 1993. Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas and Virginia. Working Draft of November
1993. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 575 pp.

Webster, W.D., Parnell, J.F. and Biggs, W.C., Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and
Maryland. J'he University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp.

18

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Site Location Map
Bridge # 103
SR 2202 Over
Lumber River
Robeson County, NC
B-3035

I

e-e-e

I

Project:

Dale: AUG 1996

I BRIDGE NO. 103
ROBESON
I COUNTY
B-3035
I
I LOOKING NORTH
I
I
I
I
I
I LOOKING SOUTH
I
I
I
I
I
I SIDE VIEW
I
I
I FIGURE 3

J.\

I 1''''.
\~
() a
I ~, ~
;:::~, IJ) r<I ;:::\\

N\ ..,; -

I ;\ r{) 2-
.. \:)
~ ~ 1t
I ~ \ ~
~t\D ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

f~'> j .
'. ;/ . ~ \ / //L~-/-l-I-
/ . '%\ y\ / ,---------_.
" \ //~
~:/ \\

\'

I

I I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

:\ORTH CAROLNA DIVISIO:\
FI~Al. NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f) EVALUATIO~ AND APPR<)VAL
FOR FEDERALLi.'-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS \\11TH I\lINOR INVOLVEI\,lENT
WITH PUBLIC PARKS. RECREA TIO~ LANDS, A~1) \VILDLIFE A0JD
\VATERFOWL REFUGES

F, A, Project BRSTP-2202(1)

State Project 8.2461201
T. 1. P. ~o. B-3035

Description: Btidge 1\'0, 103 along SR 2202 over the Lumber River, TO\vn of Lumberton,
Robeson County, See Desctiption, Page 6.

Yes ;-;0

1.

Is the proposed project designed to
improve the operational characteristics.
safety. and or physical condition of
existing highway l~lcilitics on
essentially the same location?

xO

2,

Ox

Is the project on nc\" location?

3.

Is the Section 4(f) land a publicly
owned public park. recreation land. or
wildlife and waterfowl refuge located
adjacent to the existing highway?

xO

4, Does the amount and location of the land
to he used impair the use of the
remaining Section 4(f) land, in whole or 0
in patt, for its intended pUlvose? X
(See chart belm-v)
Total size of section 4{flsite _ i\1aximum to be a9-9-uired

less than 10 acres
10 acres-lOO acres
greater than 100 acres

10 percent of site
1 acre
1 percent of site

Yes No

5.

Do the proximity impacts of the project
(e.g., noise, air and water pollution,
wildlife and habitat effect'l, aesthetic
values) on the remaining Section 4(f)
land impair the use of such land for its
intended purpose?

Ox

The following altematives were evaluated and
found not to be feasible and prudent:

xO

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

6. Do the oH1cials having jUl1sdiction
over the Section 4(t) land agree, in
Wt1ting, with the assessment of the
impacts of the proposed project 011, and 0
the proposed mitigation tor. the Sedion X
4(t) lands?
7, Does the project use land from a site
purchased or improved with funds under
the Land and Water Conservation Act
(Section 6(f)), the Federal Aid in Fish
Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson Act),
the Federal Aid in Wildlife Act
(Pittman-Robertson Act), or similar
laws, or are the lands otherwise 0
encumbered with a Federal interest X
(e.g., fOlmer Federal sUl1)lus property)?
R, If the project involves lands described
in Item 7 above. does the appropriate 0
Federal Agency object to the land X
conversion or transfer?
() Docs the project require preparation of 0
/,
an EIS? X

ALTERN~lJ)'ES CO~SI12ERl;:Iu~Nl)J;:c)IIND NQTTQJlli
EEASjBI J~,_/\;{l)EIU]DE~J

Yes "No

1. :Qo-nothW-.&

Does the "do nothing" altemative:

(a) correct capacity deficiencies?

Ox
Ox
Ox
2-0

or (b) correct existing safety hazards?

or (c) correct deteriorated conditions?

and (d) create costs, unusual problems, or
impacts of extraordinaty measure?

I
I 2, Improvement of the highway without using D
I the adjacent public park recreational X
land, or wildlife waterfowl refuge.
(a) Have minor alignment shifts.
I changes in standards. use of D
retaining walls, etc., or traffic X
management measures been evaluated?
I (b) The items in 2( a) would result in
(circle, as appropriate)
I (i) substantial adverse community impact
or@substantial increased costs
I
or (iii) unique engineering, transp0l1ation,
maintenance. or safety problems
I or9 substantial ~o~ial. environmental.
or economIC Impacts
I orQ a project which does not meet the need
ane impacts, costs, or problems \vhkh are
I extraordinary magnitude
Yes No
I 3. Build an improved facility on new
location without using the public park,
recreational land. or wildlife and D
I watedowl refuge. (This would be a X
localized "tUn around. ")
I (a) An alternate on new location would
result in: (circle, as appropriate)
(QU. project which does not solve
I
the existing problems
@ubstantial social,
or
I environmental, or economic
impacts
I or @a su?stantial increas,e in .
project cost or engmeenng
difficulties
I and o such impacts, costs. or
difficulties of ttUly unusual
or unique or extraordinary
I magnitude
I

MINThfIZA TION OF HARi\J

Yes No

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

1. The project includes all possible
planning to minimize hmm.

xO

2. Measures to minimize halm include the
following:

G
G

Q

0)

(circle those which are appropriate)

a.

Replacement of lands used with lands
of reasonably equivalent usefulness
and location and of at least
comparable value.

b.

Replacement of facilities impacted
by the project including sidewalks,
paths, benches, lights, trees, and
other facilities,

Restoration and landscaping of
disturbed areas.

Incorporation of design features and
habitat features, where necessary,
to reduce or minimize impacts to the
Section 4(f) property,

Pavment of the fair market value of
th~ land and improvements taken or
improvements to the remaining
Section 4(f) site equal to the fair
market value of the land and
improvements taken.

Additional or alternative mitigation
measures as determined necessarv
based on consultation with the .
officials having jurisdiction over
the parkland, recreation area, or
wildlife or waterfowl refuge.

3. A discussion of specific mitigation measures is provided as follows:

a. Before construction begins, the Division Engineer will insure that "Bridge
Construction Ahead" signs are placed at the boat access area off SR 2202
on the upstream and downstream sides of the bridge,
b. The Lumber River channel will be kept open to boating traffic during construction.
Efforts to maintain as wide a channel opening as possible during construction shall be
made.
c. The locations of the new bridge piers shall be designed as much as possible so as not
to obstruct river traffic.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

d. If pier footing( s) which are placed in the channel come to \vithin three (3) feet of the
water's surface, fms will be installed to indicate the presence of the footing(s) in
order to protect boats and the footing(s).

e. All restoration and landscaping of disturbed areas will be accomplished by
incorporating on~v native species.

Note: Any response in a box requires additional information prior to approval. Consult
Nationwide 4(t) evaluation.

COORDINA nON

The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach cOITespondence):

~
(9

Officials having jurisdiction over
the Section 4(f) Land
LocallState!F ederal Agencies
US Coast Guard
(for bridges requiring bridgt: permits)
d. DOL if Section 6(f) lands are
involved

Su^-,1[vlARY A~1) APPRO\"AL

The project meets all ctiteria included in the programmatic 4(f) evaluation approved on
December 23, 1986.

All required altematives have been evaluated and the fmdings made are clearly applicable to
this project. There are no feasible or prudent altematives which avoid use of the Section
4(f) land.

The project includes all possible planning to minimize hann, and there arc assurances lhat
the measures to minimize halm will be incolllOratcd in the project.

All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed.

Approved:

11211~b

Dah;

~na~~'~aIB,.anCh

NCDOT

Date

~" ,~Lt-~"

pvttDivislon Administrator. FHWA

}'],-/ 18lq,b

6

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

EXISTING CONDITIONS

SR 2202 is classified as an urban minor arterial in the Statewide Functional Classification System.
The proposed project occurs in rural Robeson County approximately 1 kilometer (0.6 mi) south
of the city of Lumberton on SR 2202. Land use within the study corridor includes urban
residences interspersed with natural vegetation.

Near the bridge, SR 2202 has a 6.1 meter (20 ft) pavement width with 1.8 meter (6 ft) shoulders.
The roadway approaches slope up toward the bridge. The horizontal alignment is tangent on the
bridge with a 215 meter radius (8 degree) curve approximately 45 meters (150 ft) from the bridge
to the south. The north approach consists of a 480 meter radius (3.5 degree) curve approximately
30 meters (100 ft) from the end of the bridge. The roadway is situated approximately 5.8 meters
(19 ft) above the creek bed.

The traffic ~plumes were 1200 vehicles per day (vpd) for 1995 and projected to be 2100 vpd for
the design year 2020. The volumes include 1 % truck-tractor semi-trailer (TIST) and 4% dual-
tired (DT) vehicles. The speed limit is not posted and assumed to be 90 kilometers per hour (55
mph).

The existing bridge was built in 1950. The superstructure consists of five steel I-girder spans.
Bridge deck construction is a cast in place concrete floor deck with an asphalt wearing surface.
The substructure consists of steel pile end bents and interior bents with reinforced concrete caps.

The overall length of the bridge is 61.3 meters (201 ft). Clear roadway width is 8.0 meters (26.1
ft). The posted weight limit is 27,216.0 kilograms (30 tons) for single vehicles and legal gross
weight for tractor trailer trucks.

Bridge No.1 03 has a sufficiency rating of 18.1, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.

No accidents were reported in the vicinity of the bridge during the period from March 1, 1992 to
February 28, 1995.

A sanitary sewer line crosses SR 2202 north of the bridge. Telephone lines cross the stream west
of the bridge. There are no utilities attached to the bridge.

School buses cross the bridge, a total of four times daily.

ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives were studied for replacing Bridge No ,103, Each alternate consists of replacing
the existing bridge with a new bridge having a clear roadway width of 12.0 meters (40 ft) and a
length of 61 meters (200 ft). The approach roadway will consist of a 7.2 meter (24 ft) travelway
with 2.4 meter (8 ft) shoulders.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

The alternate alignments studied are shown in Figure 2 and are as follow:

Alternate A with on-site detour: involves replacing the bridge in its existing location, The
roadway grade would be approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge grade. A design
speed of 100 kilometers per hour (60 mph) would be provided. Temporary, on-site detours were
considered west (Temporary Detour 1) and east (Temporary Detour 2) of the existing bridge.
Based on a benefit-cost ratio of 0.52, an on-site detour is not reasonable (see Section VII).

Alternate A with off-site detour (Recommended): involves replacing,-the bridge in its existing
location. Traffic would be detoured on SR 2203, SR 2289, and NC 72 during construction (see
Figure 1). The roadway grade would be approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge
grade. A design speed of 100 kilometers per hour (60 mph) would be provided.

Alternate B: involves replacing the bridge approximately 15 meters (50 ft) east of the existing
roadway alignment. Traffic would be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. The
roadway grade would be approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge grade. A design
speed of 80 kilometers per hour (45 mph) would be provided, requiring a design exception. One
dwelling is near the proposed right-of-way and could be affected if the septic lines are involved.

The No-Build or "do-nothing" alternative was also considered but would eventually necessitate
closure of the bridge. This is not desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 2202.

Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that rehabilitation
of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.

7

ESTIMATED COST

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

The estimated costs of the alternatives studied, based on current prices, are as follow:

Structure Removal

$35,462.05
$512,400.00
$138,840.00
$228,297.95
$135,000.00
$32,500.00

Structure

Roadway Approaches

Miscellaneous and Mobilization

Engineering and Contingencies

Right-of-Way / Const. Easement /
Util.

TOTAL

$1,082,500.00
$550,500.00
$1,633,000.00

Temporary On-Site Detour

TOTAL WITH ON-SITE DETOUR

RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS

AltemateA
with off-site
detour
(Rec()Dl1l1ended)

$3~,462.05

$512,400.00

$138,840.00

$228,297.95

$135,000.00

$32,500.00

$1,082,500.00
NA
$1,082,500.00

$35,462.05
$512,400.00
$371,940.00
$295,197.95
$185,000.00
$36,500.00

$1,436,500.00
NA
$1,436,500.00

Bridge No. 103 will be replaced in its existing location with a new bridge having a c1e~ roadway
width of 12.0 meters (40 ft) and a length of 61 meters (200 ft). Traffic will be detoured on SR
2203, SR 2289, and NC 72 during construction, a distance of 3.6 kilometers (2.2 mi). The design
speed is 100 kilometers per hour (60 mph).

The Division Office concurs with the recommended improvements.

8

I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

~

,

ir~.~

- --- -
- - -
DEHNR

tate of North Carolina
r. epartment of Environment I
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Parks & Recreation

James 8, Hunt. Jr.. Governor
Jonathan B. Howes. Secretary
Dr, Philip K. McKnelly. Director

August 23, 1996

MEMORANDUM

TO: H. Franklin Vick, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch

FROM: Marshall Ellis ~4..(b~....L ~
Planning and Natural Resources Section

SUBJECT: Replacement of bridge #103 over the Lumber River, Robeson County. Federnl-
Aid Project No. BRSTP-2202(1). NCDOT TIP No. B-3035. State Project
#8.2461201.

The Division of Parks and Recreation (DPR) has reviewed the plans and Draft Nationwide
Section 4(f) evaluation for this project and has determined that it will not significantly affect the
Lumber River State Park's natural resources. Although we have no objections to the project as
it is planned, we would like to offer the following brief comments:

1. This project is on a stretch of the Lumber River that has been designated as a Recreational
River under the Natural and Scenic Rivers Act. It is very popular with recreati.onal boaters.
Therefore, DPR requests that particular care and attention be given to mitigation measures,
especially those dealing with erosion and sedimentation control, restoration of disturbed areas,
warning signs, and the maintenance of an open channel for boating.

2. The DPR requests that all restoration and landscaping use only native species.

Thank you for the opportunity to review this project.

cc: James Sessoms, Superintendent, Lumber River State Park

LURIB103

P.O. Box 27687. Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]

James B. Hunt Jr" Governor
Belly Ray McCain, Secretary

Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources

April 22, 1996
MEMORANDUM

TO:

FROM:

H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation

David BrOOk~aLUJ\.dJ~LW,L
Deputy State Histe,ric Preservation Officer

Group XI Bridge Replacement Projects
Bridge 103 on SR 2202 over Lumber River, Robeson
County, B-3035, ER 96-8569

SUBJECT:

Thank you for your letter of March 13, 1996, concerning the above project.

We are aware of no structures of historic or architectural importance within the general
area of the project. We recommend that an architectural historian on your staff identify
and evaluate any structures over fifty years of age within the project area, and report the
findings to us.

There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our
present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may
be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the
project construction. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be
conducted in connection with this project.

The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763.

DB:slw

cc: N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett

109 East Jones Street. Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

@

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Fedcral Aid # "'rt'7If'. 2.U11- ( I) TIP # ~. ,?",?C:;

County 1Ue>e.-;',N

CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

Brief Project Dcscnption rz.e:.f'L,.A~ e.ftIOG-e NI. lo'? ,~ ~~ 'L'UJ1- P'I~ WM&e:12- l24"E/t..
( ~f2.l ()~e. "~IAP 'l'l ')

On ~ #t

I'll v
I

, reprcscntatives of the

./ North Carolina Dcpartmcnt of Transportation (NCDOT)
Fcdcral Highway Administration (FH\vA)
./ North Carolina Statc Historic Prcservation Office (SHPO)
Othcr

rcviewed thc subject project at

A scoping mecting
.,/ Historic architectural resources photograph rcvic\v scssion/consultation
Other

All partics prcscnt agrecd

thcre arc no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects,

../

there arc no properties less than fifty years old which are considcred to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potcntial effccts,

./

thcrc arc propcrtics ovcr fifty ycars old (list attached) within thc projcct's arca of potcntial cffects,
but bascd on the historical infonnation available and thc photographs of cach propcrty, properties
idcntificd as ~ tf arc considcrcd not cligible
for National Rcgi tcr a d no furthcr cvaluation of thcm is nccessary,

./

thcre are no National Registcr-listed propcrties within the project's arca of potential effects.

Signcd:

~~t-
Repre , ti ., COOT

\\11 '1 I 111 ~
Date

s; l:) /9,-
Date

l)€\:~{1 ~~ diM)
Representative SHPO

t:)~
Dae

ll~)~ t4-^~

State Historic Prescrvation Officer !

! '()..>7?i.UJ:;V
I

5/1'//9{>
/ Dafe I

If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this fonn and the allm:hcu list will he included,

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment I
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management

James 8, Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan 8, Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr" P,E., Director

M'A

DEHNR

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

April 15, 1996

MEMORANDUM

To:

From:

Phil Harris
Eric Galambq
Water Quality Checklist for Group XI Bridge Replacement Projects

Subject:

The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental Management requests that
DOT consider the following generic environmental commitments for bridge
replacements:

A. OEM requests that DOT sfrictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled,
"Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B ,0024) throughout
design and construction for this project in the area that drains to streams having
WS (water supply), ORW (outstanding resource water), HQW (high quality
water), B (body contact), SA (shellfish water) or Tr (trout water) classifications
to protect existing uses.

B, OEM requests that bridges be replaced in existing location with road closure, If
an on-site detour or road realignment is necessary, the approach fills should be
removed to pre-construction contour and revegetated with native tree species at
320 stems per acre,

C. OEM requests that weep holes not be installed in the replacement bridges in
order to prevent sediment and other pollutants from entering the body of water,
If this is not completely possible, weep holes should not be installed directly
over water.

0, Wetland impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures). If this is not possible, alternatives that minimize wetland
impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts may be required,

E. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands. It is likely that compensatory
mitigation will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow,

Please be aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts
have not been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.

cc: Monica Swihart
Melba McGee

bridges.sco

p,o, Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

I

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

Regulatory Branch

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P,O, BOX 1890
WilMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402,1890
April 11, 1996

I

Action ID No. 199601562

I

Mr. H, Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201

I

I

Dear Mr. Vick:

I

Reference your letter dated March 13, 1996, requesting comments regarding
the potential environmental impacts associated with the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Group XI Bridge Replacement Project,
Bridge No, 50 on NC Highway 903 over Little Contentnea Creek, at the Pitt
County ,and Greene County line, near Scuffleton, North Carolina, TIP B-1204,

I

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates excavation and/or discharge
of excavated and/or fill material into waters of the United States, including
wetlands. The Corps of Engineers must assess the impacts of such activities
on the aquatic environment before a final permit decision can be made.

I

Federal permit authorization of fill activities within waters of the
United States puysuant to Section 404 requires that the project be water
dependant and/or that no practicable alternatives are available, Our initial
emphasis for review of NCDOT projects focuses on anticipated impacts to waters
and/or wetlands. However, if degradation to other aspects of the natural
environment (e,g., critical habitat of endangered species) is considered to be
of greater concern, an alternative resulting in greater aquatic losses may be
chosen as preferred. In all cases, and in accordance with ~e 1990 Mitigation
Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
the Corps, unavoidable impacts to wetland resources must be addressed prior to
the final permit decision.

I

I

I

Based upon our review of the documentation you provided, much more
information is needed for us to make a determination reoHrrlino rhe ~prlprrll
permit requirements. Specifically, you should provide project plans which
describe the proposed work and indicate all impacts to waters of the United
States, including wetlands, associated with this project, Wetland impacts
should be described in terms of size, location, and type, This includes
temporary and permanent approach fills, and any borrow/waste activity that may
impact waters and/or wetlands.

I

I

Once this information becomes available, please provide it to the
Washington Regulatory Field Office for our review. As your planning process
continues, please be reminded that avoidance and minimization of impacts to
waters and wetlands should be undertaken to the maximum extent practicable.
In addition, a compensatory mitigation plan must be developed and approved
prior to the issuance of a Department of the Army permit.

I

I

I

I

I

-2-

I

I

Thank you for your time and cooperation. If you have any questions,
please contact Mr. Henry Wicker, Washington ~egulatory Field Office,
telephone [phone], extension 25.

I

Sincerely,

~L~

David M. Lekson, P.W.S.
Field Office Manager

I

I

Copies Furnished (without enclosure)

I

Mr. Thomas Welborn, Chief
Wetlands Regulatory Section - Region IV
Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, ~.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365

I

Mr. Larry Hardy
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516

I

Mr. John Herner
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726

March 27, 1996

MAR 2 b 1996

Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Division of Highways
P.o. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611

DIVISIC~ U;

Subject:

Group XI Bridge Replacement Projects
Various counties, North Carolina (TIP Nos. B-1204, 2514, 2533,
2818, 2861, 2862, 2873, 2964, 3011, 3035, 3085, 3274, 3392, 3410)

Dear Mr. Vick:

This responds to your letter of March 13, 1996 requesting information from the
u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for evaluating the potential
environmental impacts of the above-referenced projects. This report provides
scoping information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report also serves
as comments to federal and state resource agencies for use in their permitting
and/or certification processes for this project.

Preliminary planning by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
calls for the replacement of fourteen bridges in various Eastern North Carolina
counties.

The Service's mission is to provide the leadership to conserve, protect, and
enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of all
people. Due to staffing limitations, we are unable to provide you with site-
specific comments at this time. However, the following recommendations should
help guide the planning process and facilitate our review of the proj~ct.

Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized
~o ~he maximum ex~en~ pract~cable as ou~l~ned in the Clean Water Act Sect~on
404(b)(1) Guidelines. Bridge replacements should maintain natural water flows
and circulation regimes without scouring or impeding fish and wildlife passage.
Habitat fragmentation should be minimized by using the existing disturbed
corridor instead of a new alignment. Impact areas should be stabilized by using
appropriate erosion control devices and/or techniques. Wherever appropriate,
construction in sensitive areas should occur outside of anadromous fish spawning
and migratory bird nesting seasons.

We reserve the right to review any required federal or state permits at the time
of public notice issuance. Resource agency coordination should occur early in
the planning process to resolve land use conflicts and minimize delays.

In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental
documentation for this project include the following (the level of detail should
be commensurate with the degree of environmental impacts):

1. A clearly defined purpose and need for the proposed project including a
discussion of the project's independent utility;

I

2.

I

An analysis of the alternatives to the proposed project that were
considered, including a no action alternative;

3.

A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within the action
area of the proposed project which may be affected directly or
indirectly;

I

4.

The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that
are to be impacted by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, and/or
draining. Wetland impact acreages should be differentiated by habitat
type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National Wetlands
Inventory. Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987
Corps of Enqineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers;

I

I

5.

The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent,
that would be likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed
project. Also, an assessment should be included regarding the extent to
which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to natural
resources and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative
adverse effects;

I

I

6.

Techniques which would be employed to design and construct wetland
crossings, relocate stream channels, and restore, enhance, or create
wetlands for compensatory mitigation;

I

7.

Mitigation measures which would be employed to avoid, minimize, rectify,
reduce, or compensate for habitat value losses associated with the
project. These measures should include a detailed compensatory
mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.

I

The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered, threatened, and
candidate species that are known to occur in Bladen, Brunswick, Columbus,
Cumberland, Duplin, Durham, Greene, Pender, Pitt, Robeson, Scotland, Wayne, and
Wilson counties. Habitat requirements for the Federally-listed species in the
project area should be compared with the available habitat at the project site.
If suitable habitat is present within the action area of the project, field
surveys for the species should be performed, and survey methodologies and results
included in the environmental documentation for this project. In addition to
this guidance, the following information should be included in the environmental
document regarding protected species (the level of detail should be commensurate
with the degree of environmental impacts):

I

I

I

1.

A specific description of the proposed action to be considered,-

I

2.

A description and accompanvinq map of the specific area used in the
analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts;

3.

I

A description of the biology and status of the listed species and of the
associated habitat that may be affected by the action, including the
results of an onsite inspection;

4.

I

An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed species and
associated habitat:

a.

Direct and indirect impacts of the project on listed species.
Indirect effects are those that are caused by the proposed action
and are later in time but are still reasonably certain to occur;

I

b.

A discussion of the environmental baseline which includes
interrelated, interdependent, past and present impacts of Federal,
State, and private activities in the project and cumulative effects
area;

I

I

I

I

I

c.

Interrelated actions are those that are part of a larger action and
depend on the larger action for their justification;

I

d.

Cumulative impacts of future state and private activities (not
requiring Federal agency involvement, that will be considered as
part of future Section 7 consultation);

I

5.

Summary of evaluation criteria used as a measurement of potential effects;

6.

A description of the manner in which the action may affect any listed
species or associated habitat including project proposals to
reduce/eliminate adverse effects;

I

7.

Based on evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the project is
not likely to adversely affect or may affect threatened and endangered
species.

I

I

Candidate species are those plant and animal species for which the Service has
sufficient information on their biological status and threats to their survival
to propose them as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). Although candidate species receive no statutory protection under the ESA,
Federal agencies are required to informally confer with the Service on actions
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of these species or that may destroy
or modify proposed critical habitat. Species of concern include those species
for which the Service does not have enough scientific information to support a
listing proposal or species which do not warrant listing at the present time.
Species of Concern receive no statutory protection under the ESA, but could
become candidates in the future if additional scientific information becomes
available indicating they are endangered or threatened. Formal listing places
the species under the full protection of the ESA, and necessitates a new survey
if its status in the project corridor is unknown. Therefore, it would be prudent
for the project to avoid any adverse impact to candidate species or their
habitat. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for
information on species under State protection.

I

I

I

I

The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please
continue to advise us of the progress made in the planning process, including
your official determination of the impacts of this project.

I

\J

I

I

Attachments

I

cc:

NCDEHNR-DEM
NCWRC
NMFS
FHWA
USACE
EPA

I

I

FWS/R4/KDoak/KHD:3-26-96/9l9-856-4520 ext 19/wp:BMAR96.SCP

I

I

U5.Department.
Of Transportation
UnIted Statot
Coast Guard

Commander
Fifth Cotst Guard District

Federal Building
431 Crawford Str66t~
Pol1llmouth. VA 237 .5004
StaH Symbol: (owb)
Phone;
(804) 98-6222

16590
20 Aug 96

Mr. H. franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Plann1ng and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201

Dear Mr. Vick:

ThlH reHponds to your letters of June 13, 1996, reque9t1ng our
concurrence that Coast Guard Bridge Permits will not he required
for the proposed replacements of Bridge No. 256 over the
Northeast Cape Fear River, Bridge No. lover Sturgeon Creek, and
Bridges No. 16 and 103 over the Lumber River.

Section 107 of the Coa8t Guard Authorization Act of 1982, Publio
Law 97-322, exempts bridge projeots from Coast Guard Bridge
Permits when the bridge project crosses nontidal waters which are
not used, susceptible to use in their natural condition, or
suscaptible to use by reasonablQ imprOVQIDQnt as a mQsng to
transport interstate or foreign commerce. We heve determinad
thot each of these bridge projects will cross a section of
waterway which meets these conditions. Accordingly, Coast Guard
Bridge permits will not be required for any of these bridges.

The fact that Coast Guard Bridge Permits will not be required for
theBe projectB doee not roceive you of the responsibility for
compliance with the requirements of any other Federal, State or
local agency Who may have jurisdiction by law over any other
a9pect of the projects.

If you hove any questions concerning these comments, please feel
free to contact me at (757) ~9a-6222.

) ,o,~~
~~~ ~.
NO\
,\~\O ......
,;;;) ~r--.'
.~\-\'"'-'-
--x"(( ....
J V'R.O\

-1-."-.
,- ,-.....

Sincerely,

~L~

ANN B. DEATON
Chief, Bridge Administration Section
By direction of the Commander
Fifth Coast Guard District

: Ci'j !31 ;-,Cd i 1'1(-(:; '1h:j ::;(-i! [.jt j~-:':J . ~i 1 -.' - l ~ JI-~:l'" ~r::" -':-~? -~:.,I-;I-1

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I