19950251 Ver 1_Complete File_19950308

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA !
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION _
JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.G 27611-5201 SECRETARY
February 10, 1995
m# 95251._.._

fill
District Engineer J Iss u °
Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
Subject: Anson County, SR 1428, Replacement of Bridge No. 169 over Brown
Creek, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1428(1), State Project
No. 8.2651201, TIP No. B-2505.
Attached for your information are three copies of the project planning
report for the subject project. The project is being processed by the Federal
Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR
771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an individual permit
but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR
330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November 22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers.
The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will
be followed in the construction of the project.
Vie anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2745 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE
document to the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, for their review.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call
Mr. Doug Huggett at 733-3141.
,
Sjn eW
n.
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/dvh
cc: Mr. Ernie Jahnke, COE-Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DEM
Mr. John Parker, NCDEHNR, DCM
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith Jr., P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. B. G. Payne, P.E., Division 10 Engineer
Ms. Michelle James, Planning and Environmental Branch
Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and Environmental Branch
10
I. .
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-2505
State Project No. 8.2651201
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1428(1)
A. Project Description: THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN ANSON
COUNTY OVER BROWN CREEK. BRIDGE NO. 169 ON SR 1428 WILL
BE REPLACED WITH A BRIDGE 140 FEET LONG AND 28 FEET WIDE.
THE STRUCTURE WILL PROVIDE A 22-FOOT TRAVELWAY WITH A 3-
FOOT OFFSET ON EACH SIDE. APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET EAST OF
THE BRIDGE, THE ROADWAY GRADE IS FIVE FEET BELOW THE
EXISTING BRIDGE GRADE. THERE IS A 24-INCH DIAMETER
CORRUGATED METAL OVERFLOW PIPE UNDER THE ROAD
APPROXIMATELY 120 FEET EAST OF THE EXISTING BRIDGE. TO
IMPROVE THE LEVEL OF SERVICE, THE EAST APPROACH ROADWAY
GRADE WILL BE RAISED AND ADDITIONAL OVERFLOW PIPES WILL
BE PROVIDED. THE BRIDGE WILL BE REPLACED IN ITS EXISTING
LOCATION AND TRAFFIC WILL BE DETOURED ONTO EXISTING AREA
ROADS.
NOTE: Refer to Section D, "Special Project Information,
for list of ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS.
B. Purpose and Need: BRIDGE NO. 169 HAS A SUFFICIENCY RATING
OF 18.3 OUT OF 100 AND AN ESTIMATED REMAINING LIFE OF 6
YEARS. THE BRIDGE IS POSTED 9 TONS SV AND 12 TONS TTST.
BECAUSE OF THE DETERIORATED CONDITION, BRIDGE NO. 169
SHOULD BE REPLACED.
C. Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following improvements which
apply to the project:
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing,
restoration, rehabilitation, reconstruction, adding
shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g.,
parking, weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and
Reconstructing pavement (3R and 4R
improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding
through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge,
auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets,
and drainage pipes, including safety
treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than

Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement
projects including the installation of ramp
metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey
type barriers and pier protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or
upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation
and/or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements
including removing hazards and flattening
slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and
motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including
bridge rail retrofit
O Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or
replacement or the construction of grade separation
to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing
bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no
red lead paint), scour repair, fender systems,
and minor structural improvements
dO Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest
areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or
for joint or limited use of right-of-way, where the
proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance
facilities in areas used predominantly for
industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing
? r
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
zoning and located on or near a street with
adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and
support vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail
and bus buildings and ancillary facilities where
only minor amounts of additional land are required
and there is not a substantial increase in the
number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open
area consisting of passenger shelters, boarding
areas, kiosks and related street improvements) when
located in a commercial area or other high activity
center in which there is adequate street capacity
for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance
facilities in areas used predominantly for
industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing
zoning and where there is no significant noise
impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective
purposes, advance land acquisition loans under
section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a
particular parcel or a limited number of parcels.
These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE
only where the acquisition will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in
alignment for planned construction projects, which
may be required in the NEPA process. No project
development on such land may proceed until the NEPA
process has been completed.
D. Special Project Information:
ALL STANDARD PROCEDURES AND MEASURES WILL BE IMPLEMENTED
TO AVOID AND MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.
WETLANDS WILL NOT BE DISRUPTED BY THE PROJECT.
THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY CONDUCTED FOR THE PROJECT
RESULTED IN FINDING NO EVIDENCE OF SIGNIFICANT
ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIAL. NO FURTHER WORK IS RECOMMENDED.
THREE FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES ARE LISTED FOR ANSON
COUNTY: RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER, BALD EAGLE AND SHORTNOSE
STURGEON. PROJECT B-2505 WILL NOT IMPACT THESE SPECIES.

Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
ESTIMATED COST:
CONSTRUCTION - $ 550,000
RIGHT-OF-WAY - $ 29,000
TOTAL $ 579.000
ESTIMATED TRAFFIC:
1994 - 500 VPD
2016 - 1000 VPD
THE APPROACHES WILL BE A 22-FOOT PAVEMENT WITH 4-FOOT
GRASSED SHOULDERS.
THE DESIGN SPEED IS 60 MPH.
SR 1428 IS CLASSIFIED AS A RURAL LOCAL ROUTE.
THE DIVISION OFFICE CONCURS WITH THE PROPOSED ROAD
CLOSURE.
NO CONSIDERATION WAS GIVEN TO RELOCATING SR 1428 SINCE
THE EXISTING HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT IS ADEQUATE.
E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved with the project,
the following evaluation must be completed. If the project
consists only of Type I improvements, the following checklist
does not need to be completed.
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact ? X
on any unique or important natural resource?
(2) Does the project involve habitat where
federally listed endangered or threatened ? X
species may occur?
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
-1 X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the
amount of permanent and/or temporary
wetland taking less than one-third X ?
(1/3) of an acre AND have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland
takings been evaluated?

? s
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
(5)
Will the project require the use of U.S
Forest Service lands?
F-1 X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water
resources be adversely impacted by
proposed construction activities?
F] x
(7) Does the project involve waters classified
as Outstanding Water Resources (OWR) and/or ? X
High Quality Waters (HOW)?
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of
the United States in any of the designated a X
mountain trout counties?
(9) Does the project involve any known
underground storage tanks (UST's) or ? X
hazardous materials sites?
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA
county, will the project significantly X
affect the coastal zone and/or any "Area
of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier ? X
Resources Act resources?
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be ? X
required?
(13) Will the project result in the modification ? X
of any existing regulatory floodway?
(14) Will the project require any stream ? X
relocations or channel changes?
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts ? X
to planned growth or land use for the area?
(16) Will the project require the relocation of ? X
any family or business?
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of ?
right of way, is the amount of right of way X
acquisition considered minor?
(18) Will the project involve any changes in ? X
access control?
(19) Will the project substantially alter the
usefulness and/or land use of adjacent ? X
property?
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on
permanent local traffic patterns or ? X
community cohesiveness?
(21) Is the project included in an approved ?
thoroughfare plan and/or Transportation X
Improvement Program (and is, therefore, in
conformance with the Clean Air Act of
1990)?
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an ? X
increase traffic volumes?
(23) Will traffic be maintained during ?
construction using existing roads, staged X
construction, or on-site detours?
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social,
economic, or environmental grounds ? X
concerning the project?

t
Y

Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal, ?
State, and local laws relating to the x
environmental aspects of the action?
CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on
properties eligible for or listed on the ? X
National Register of Historic Places?
(27) Will the project require the use of
Section 4(f) resources (public parks,
recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl ? X
refuges, historic sites, or historic
bridges, as defined in Section 4(f) of the
U. S. Department of Transportation Act of
1966)?
(28) Will the project involve construction in,
across, or adjacent to a river designated ? X
as a component of or proposed for inclusion
in the Natural System of Wild and Scenic
Rivers?
F. Additional Documentation_ Required for Unfavorable
Responses in Part E
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E
should be provided below. Additional supporting
documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
Federal-Aid Project No.
B-2505
8.2651201
_BRZ-1428(1)
Project Description: THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN ANSON
COUNTY OVER BROWN CREEK. BRIDGE NO. 169 ON SR 1428 WILL
BE REPLACED WITH A BRIDGE 140-FEET LONG AND 28 FEET WIDE.
THE BRIDGE WILL BE REPLACED IN ITS EXISTING LOCATION AND
TRAFFIC WILL BE DETOURED ONTO EXISTING AREA ROADS.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
TYPE II(A)
TYPE II(B)
Approved:
4.V1-
17-2/44 V _
DateH. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
-??- / GVa `7 c-_ L//' 0? _
Date Wayne/Elliott
Project Planning Unit Head
Date Oc ele Jame
Project Planning Engineer
For Type II(B) projects only:
uate uivision HGministrator reaeral Hignway
Administration

f

v
\
` I I
I fl ]p '-

Syc 1
1
5
6 \ \ '

im
, ,\IP
J rPll ? J
!' C.d Grove -?V
1179
%
? 7 I

? lelJ °

IP17
?,?
?
a
1p1, 14
Kite. % ?
12
1r
J I `
\ / 1 ^ ?1 PEE DFE wA t10NAl
F
\
.1
I? ] 1 C IOJI
h ? 1 y
1
WIIDUFE'fEfUGE,
T',.? _ 1174 1171 .. 1111
\ p,n `y Jf.
M J
ti

1110=
ap
\? /1?
3'
1
Mt. V.
Ch.
dlI
1137 V >J
1 f?J 1A1 ? 7 r\? ?>
?
30
-
1177 1111
1174
J 1 1 l lOlr y

t?

/ I 1
111e
'
\ C A1V
p
J I J
' • r l 10
I
ms
'
,
`?
Iy7
11
-

,u
( fie

1 e
, /
?k:
`
I/LS
e
? 5
1 '
?
117
a+J'? 1 h T: IIJQ -
'1129 \ \ 'e11 10.1 s ,
rye 1s ?nCo.

JJ YJ / ?
N t? F,,
1017 ? A?.yprl
??,1•.
\ L/11
) 3 114
T
l
l
e
- '07>
y
e
_ .-.
? .' _ 7---,? Iler ,? nl
111rrLL'_ is
I JI
'f.1 =.i I Pv.4.roo
11 N J;
POLMON
I
,5 e1t
1121 .?,?., te1).'
POP
2
J
1
;. I r

'
J
11111 n1.1 r _'---_-7. 7/ •___-?
W _ ISO ` J'. ?'-! r11r ?f2
??
?
BRIDGE
X NO, 169,
1?

.
I JJ
111, ?Q.
y
;
14,1

1
u
I n1? ) r 2
V "1 1 A f
\\\
.1. tfU
?? t1
' 1
71V I p? ? \ ?
` ', JI] 20 { .'
MAI 11
IL S -L_
;
?
?1 l 1719 UI 11e1 1t0J •
? Iy7 LR1F A i f

1
? x
11
-•.__
% I n1J ISa1 _ 7 I S ?

m i1 1t1n CI 1 ror, xm ( 1z
Z {/2?r?? ? ? IJaf Il ?i2 7
?it.e ? In r I ? ? 'SOU_q ?p1

r 11'I
ItUf
1 I
? J 1
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE

H
122
Hi- r
h,21/,
1. kv
?rlesvrlle ??
p De
N
/ 9 Cad.
( McFu1e
NORTH CAROLINA DEPAIt'I MEN•1' OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OP HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
to IMANC11
BRIDGE NO. 169
ANSON COUNTY
B-2505
0 miles 2
I I FIG. 1

Replacement of Bridge No. 169
On SR 1428
Over Brown Creek
Anson County
TIP No. B-2505
F. A. Project No. BRZ-1428 (1)
State Project No. 8.2651201
Natural Resources Technical Report
B-2505
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
Gary B. Blank, Ph.D., and Richard R. Braham, Ph.D.
Ecological Consultants
August 8, 1994
B-2505 Auousr 8, 1994
r
1.0 Introduction
The following natural resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in preparation
of a Categorical Exclusion (CE). This report inventories the natural resources occurring within the
project area, identifies environmental concerns which must be addressed in the planning stages of
this project, and recommends means for minimizing environmental degradation.
1.1 Project Description
Project B-2505 proposes to replace the existing structure (Bridge No. 169) on SR 1428 over
Brown Creek. The stricture is 5.8 m (18.0 ft) wide with 1.2 m (4.0 ft) grass shoulders along the
approaches. Replacement with a 6.7 m (22.0 ft) wide structure having 1.8 m (6.0 ft) shoulders is
proposed.
Two alternatives are being considered: (1) replacement at the existing location with road
closure or (2) replacement at the existing location with a temporary on-site detour; the detour bridge
would be approximately 18.3 m (60.0 ft) long and located 15.2 m (50.0 ft) upstream.
In addition, a concerete pipe 122 cm (48 in) in diameter will replace a 61 em (24 in) overflow
pipe that crosses the road about 36.6 m (120 ft) cast of the existing bridge. The area surrounding
this culvert was also examined.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this report is to discuss current natural resource conditions surrounding the
B-2505 project site and to determine what impact, if any, proposed actions would have on existing
resources. Recommendations to minimize impacts are made with the understanding that proposed
actions result from preliminary design parameters. Thus, design alterations could necessitate
further field investigation.
1.3 Study Area.
The project study area is a 0.4 ha (0.9 ac) circular tract of land with a radius of 35 m (115 ft).
Center point for the circle lies in the middle of the existing bridge. The project area includes all land
expected to be impacted by the proposed project and can be found on the Polkton Quadrangle
(USGS 7.5 Minute series).
Mature Mesic Pine/Hardwoods surround the existing bridge and culvert, except for the
roadsides along SR 1428. Outside of' the project area, the forest has recently been clear-cut on both
the cast and west sides, and an agricultural field occurs to the cast. Roadsides on either side of the
existing pavement are regularly mowed in a swath about 3 m (10 ft) wide.
1.4 Methodology
The site was visited on June 29, 1994 to determine natural resource conditions and confirm
published information available concerning the site (Sources cited where applicable in the report).
Vegetation communities were identified according to dominant species types, supplemented with
detailed species lists for all strata. Dominance (basal area) of woody vegetation was determined
using the variable-plot method (Dilworth and Bell 1986). Tree heights were measured using an
Abney level hypsometer (Dilworth and Bell 1980). Percent foliar cover of ground-layer vegetation
B-2505 3 August 8, 1994
was ocularly estimated, using cover guides prepared by Belanger and Anderson (1989). With few
exceptions, plant nomenclature follows Radford et al. (1968). Terrestrial wildlife habitat was
about 3 m (10 ft) wide is characterized by vegetation type, but the site was examined for signs of
use by and life-requisite availability for species typical of the locale. Aquatic conditions were
examined immediately beneath the existing bridge and at alternative crossing points for temporary
detour location. Wetland delineation follows procedures established by the US Army Corps of
Engineers (Environmental L.ab 1987).
2.0 Physical Resources
This section decribes water and soil resources within the project study area, especially
focusing on water quality documentation, information gathered on-site, and information gathered
from the Anson County Soil Survey and available maps.
2.1 Water Resources
Brown Creek arises just north of Pagcland, South Carolina, enters North Carolina in
southeast Union County, and flows northeasterly across Anson County to its confluence with the
Pec Dce River. It is located in subbasin 03-07-10 of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin.
Above SR 1428, the Brown Creek watershed encompasses approximately 271 km' (105
mi=d, with many tributaries draining small shallow valleys. Through much of its course, especially
the lower reaches, Brown Creek is a meandering stream with broad bends, multiple channels, and
numerous oxbows. The floodplain is often quite broad, though in spots it is constricted between
fairly close bluffs. Where this occurs, broad and flat swampy areas usually exist upstream of the
constrictions.
At the B-2505 project site, the bridge spans a well defined channel with fairly steep banks on
either side (Table 1).
Table 1. Characteristics of Brown Creek at the B-2505 Project Site.
Location Brid?,,c and 15.2 m Upstream and Downstream
Substrate Too Deep for determination (probably mud)
Current Sluggish
Stream Gradient Flat
Channel Width
Bank Height
Water depth (m)
Water Color
Water Odor
Aquatic Vegetation
Adjacent Vegetation
Wetlands Associated
2.1.2 Water Quality
12.2 m (40 ft)
Sloping up from 0.6 m (2 f't) to 3.0 m (10 ft)
0.9 m (3 ft)
Brown
None
None observed
Hardwood and Pinc
Bank to bank
From the South Carolina state line to the Pee Dec River, Brown Creek was designated "Class
C" in 1973. "Class C" refers to waters suitable for "aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
B-2505 4 August H, 1994
wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture" (NCDEM 1993). All tributaries to Brown Creek
are also "Class C," and no HQWs or ORWs occur in the watershed.
No BMAN sites are located in the vicinity (NCDEM 1991), and all North Carolina
dischargers that were previously permitted upstream of SR 1428 have ceased discharging
(NCDEM 1994).
2.1.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Whichever of the two alternatives being considered is chosen, no permanent impacts to the
water resource will result. All impacts from B-2505 will be temporary and limited in effect. Some
difference in quantity of delivered sediment is probable because the amount of disturbance for
Alternative lA has to be greater than for Alternative 1. Replacing the culvert under SR 1428 should
not cause significant erosion, since the ditches connected by the culvert carry water only after
extended periods of heavy rain. In addition, the ditch is currently stabilized, covered with forest
litter and containing Japanese honeysuckle.
Road closure and use of an-off-site detour during construction (Alternative 1) obviously
poses the lower risk of sedimentation to Brown Creek. Moreover, use of Best Management
Practices during demolition, grading, and construction can probably reduce the potential erosion
and resultant siltation of Brown Creek to a level below that coming from nearby agricultural lands.
Compared to Alternative 1, use of an on-site detour during bridge replacement (Alternative
IA) will entail more clearing, grading, stabilization of the temporary approaches, placement of the
temporary structure, and then removal ol'all temporary material following completion of the new
structure. While Best Management Practices can substantially reduce risks of erosion and sediment
delivery to Brown Creek, they cannot eliminate the risks entirely.
The risk of sediment delivery to Brown Creek is not a major concern, however, if the extant
conditions in Brown Creek are considered. Brown Creek is a red river and, when examined, lived
up to that characterization exactly (§ 2.1). Its sediment loads are already very high, a normal
condition exacerbated by extensive agricultural activity on highly erodible soils in the watershed.
2.2 Soils
According to the Soil Survey of Anson County (Vanatta and McDowell 1915), the soil lying
along Brown Creek at this site is typed as Bermudian loam, a product of' processes decomposing
rocks of the Triassic Belt. Alluvial in origin as a result of'erosion from upper slopes and then
deposition during overflow periods in the strcambottonls, Bermudian loam "consists of a
reddish-brown to chocolate-brown, mellow loam.... In some places the subsoil is a grayish or
mottled grayish and brownish silty clay loam, containing dark concretionary material" (Vanatta and
McDowell 1915). Where Bermudian loam occurs "the topography is level and the drainage good
except between periods of overflow."
3.0 Biotic Resources
This section describes the existing vegetation and associated wildlife communities that occur
on the B-2505 project site. It also discusses potential impacts affecting these communities as a
result of the proposed actions.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Mesic Pine/Hardwoods forest community completely surrounds the existing bridge and
culvert, except for the roadsides along SR 1428. Outside of the project area, the mature forest has
been recently clearcut on both the east and west sides, and an agricultural field occurs on the cast
side. The Mesic Pine/Hardwoods community occupies about 94 percent of the study area. This
mature community was last significantly disturbed about 35-45 years ago.
B-2505 5 August 8, 1994
The vegetation immediately adjacent to the road is regularly mowed and possibly occasionally
hcrbicided. These activities favor the development of a grass-dominated community, the Roadside
Community, that occupies about 6 percent of the study area.
3.1.1 Floral Communities.
Two floral communities occur within the project area, Mcsic Pine/Hardwoods and Roadside.
The Mesic Pine/Hardwoods community is an early successional sere of the Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Forest community of Schafalc and Weakley (1990) or the Loblolly Pine--Hardwood
Forest Type (#82) of Eyre (1980). The Mesic Pine/Hardwoods community dominates the study
area, occurring throughout the study area except on the roadsides adjacent to SR 1428.
Within the project area, canopy dominance of the Mesic Pine/Hardwoods community
averages 30 m2tha (130 ft'/ac), a value typical of relatively well-developed stands. Loblolly pine
(Pinus taeda) dominates, comprising roughly one-half of the upper canopy. Approximately 50
loblolly pine trees over age 30 years occur within the study area south of SR 1428, and about 25
trees occur on the north side. A rather large number of associate species also occur, and in
localized areas, especially along Brown Creek, these species may dominate. The associate species
include red maple (Acer rubrum), swectgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), white ash (Fraxinus
americana), blackgum (Nvssa svlvatica), black cherry (Prunus serotina), shagbark hickory (Carya
ovata , yellow-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), river birch (Betula nigra), American elm (Ulmus
americana), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), water oak (Quercus ni ra), willow oak uercus
hellos , winged elm (Ulmus alata), post oak (Quercus stellata), and Shumard oak ( uercus
shumardii). Along Brown Creek, boxelder (Acer ne uQ ndo) and overcup oak (Oucrcus Ivrata) occur
also.
The lower canopy contains saplings of selected species of the upper canopy and red mulberry
(Mortis rubra), musclewood (Calpinus caroliniana), flowering dogwood (Corms florida),
bitternut hickory (Carva cordiformis), persimmon (DiosRyros vir ink iana), dwarf hackberry (Celtis
occidentalis var. eor iana , pawpaw (Asimina ttiloba), and scrviceberry (Amelanchier sp.). The
shrub layer contains especially privet (Ligustrum sinense) and common blackberry (Rubes
ar utus , but blackhaw (Viburnum prunifolium), silky dogwood (Corpus amomum), bladdeMUL
(Staphylea trifolia), possumhaw (Ilex decidua), southern arrowwood (Viburnum dcntatum),
viburnum (Viburnum nudum), pasture rose (Rosa caroling), strawberry bush (EuonymUs
americanus), and elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) occur also. In addition, smooth alder (Alms
scrrUlata) occurs on the creek banks at the water's edge.
Weedy vines dominate the ground layer, although some wildflowers occur scattered among
the large vine patches. Poison-ivy (Rhus radicans), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), two species of'grcenbricr (Smilax rotundifolia and S. bona-nox ,
Virginia creeper (ParthcnocisSUS quinqucl'olia), crossvine (Anasostichus capreolata), two species
of grape (Vitis aestivalis and V. rotundifolia), and jessamine (Gclsemium sempervirens) comprise
the dominant vine layer, but Solomon's seal (Polvgonatum biflorum), two species of uniola grass
(Uniola laxum and U. latifolia , wild yams (Dioscorea villosa), sedge (Carex sp.), lyre-leaved sage
(Salvia Iyrata), coneflower (Rudbeckia laciniata), Japanese grass (Microstegium virmineum),
false-nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), jumpseed (Tovara vir ing iana), polkweed (Phvtolacca
americans), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), ebony splcemvort (Asplenium platvneuron), and
panic grass (Panicum sp.) occur also.
Foliar cover of the ground layer averages 65 percent, but frequency among individual
species varies greatly. Overall, Japanese honeysuckle, poison-ivy, trumpet creeper, uniola grass,
and greenbrier dominate, providing roughly three-quarters of the total foliar cover. The other
species listed above, some of which are represented by only 1-5 individuals, provide the remaining
onc-quarter.
The Roadside community occurs on the roadsides of SR 1428. It contains
disturbance-tolerant species, many of which are exotic grasses. Foliar cover averages 70 percent,
and the Roadside community occupies about 6 percent of the project area. The community has not
been systematically researched, and no published vegetation studies exist.
B_2505 6 August 8, 1994
The Roadside community contains common fescue (Festuca elatior), English plantain
(Plantago lanceolata ), common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), horse-nettle (Solanum
carolinense), rye grass (Lolium multiflorum), dallis grass (Paspalum dilatatum), Japanese
honeysuckle, common blackberry, giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida), privet, elderberry, trumpet
creeper, bindweed I moea sp.), partridge-pea (Cassia faSeicUlata), Japanese grass, dogfennel
(Eupatorium capillifolium), summer grape (Vitis aestivalis), pokeweed (Phvtolacca americana),
panic grass, blue violet (Viola papilionacca), wood sorrel (Oxalis dillenii), and creeping spurge
(Euphorbia supina).
The Roadside community is frequently disturbed by mowing or herbiciding that reduces total
plant height, favors weedy disturbance-tolerant species, and increases the dominance of grasses.
Frequency of individual species is not uniformally distributed, and two zones may be recognized.
Woody plants are more common along forest edges, and grasses are more common adjacent to the
roadside. Common fescue, dallis grass, and Japanese grass provide roughly one-half of the foliar
cover on the roadside. The remaining one-half of the foliar cover in each zone is shared by the
other species listed above.
3.1.2 Faunal Communities
The 40-year old mixed pine/hardwood forest surrounding this site provides relatively mature
habitat for a variety of species. Avian species will, of course, vary with the season, and numbers
and densities of these species vary. Some species are also much more likely to use the adjacent
disturbed habitats than are others.
Given the age and type of forest, songbird breeding populations probably include the
following representative species: Rufous-sided towhee (Pilo crythrophthalmusCardinal
(Cardinal cardinalis , Summer tanager (Piranaa rubra), Scarlet tanager (Piranga olivacca),
Common flicker (Colaptes auratus), Common grackle ( uiscalus uiscula , Hooded warbler
(Wilsonia citrina , Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus), Yellow-billed cuckoo Cocc zus americanus),
Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis), Carolina wren (Thrvothorus ludoviclan us),
White-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), Tufted Titmouse (Parus bicolor), Acadian flycatcher
(Empidonax virescens , and Red-bellied woodpecker (Ccnturus carolinus .
Small mammal and rodent populations near the B-2505 project site will range from woodland
species to those utilizing edge and open habitats. Gray squirrel (Seiurus carolinensis) nests and
probable chipmunk (Tamias striatus) dens were observed. Raccoons (Procyon lotor and
opossums (Didelphis vir iniana forage along the creek banks. Eastern cottontail rabbits
(Sylvilagus floridanus) may forage in the grassy areas. Southern short-tailed shrews Blaring
carolinensis), Southeastern shrews (Sorex lon irg ostris); White-footed (Peromyscus leuco us
Cotton (Peromvscus gossypinus), and Golden (Ochrotomys nuttali mice; and Woodland volts
(Microtus pinetorium) are ground-dwelling and burrowing species apt to occur here. Likely
predators on these small mammal species include Long-tailed weasels Mustela frenata and
Bobcats (Fells nlfus , as well as Barred owls (Stria varia), Screech owls (Otis asic , and
Red-shouldered hawks (Butco lineatus).
3.2 Aquatic Communities
Discarded trash, such as an old chair and bait cans, littered the area surrounding Bridge No.
169, giving evidence of frequent human visitation and fishing activity. A dead turtle's shell was
found alongside the SR 1428 pavement, and a live specimen was observed on a log downstream in
Brown Creek. Discernible markings suggested that these specimens were Florida cooters
(Chr sy emys floridana),which arc fairly common in his region of the Carolinas. Otherwise, little
evidence of herptile populations was observed.
No rooted or free-floating aquatic plants were observed, but the depth and opacity of the
silted-brown water precluded a certain conclusion. It also made it impossible to determine the
extent of fish populations.
B-2505 7 August 8, 1993
The most likely fish species occurring here arc Common carp (Cvprinus carpi o , Redbreast
sunfish (Lepomis auritas), Tadpole madtom (Notunrs vrinus , Creek chubsuckcr (Erimvzon
oblon us , Satinfin shiner (Notropis analostanus), and Yellow bullhead (Ictalurus natalis).
3.3 Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities.
Whichever construction alternative is chosen, slightly more paved area will result from
widening approaches to the new, wider structure. This will only affect about 146 m'- (1600 ft2) of
what is currently the roadside, therefore controlled, vegetation community, but it will be a
permanent impact.
Alternative 1, replacement of the bridge in the current location with a road closing and off-site
detour, will require little or no cutting of vegetation, but trampling of existing vegetation will occur
around the construction site. No significant adverse environmental effects will result, however,
since this area is vegetated with the Roadside community--a community highly resilent to
trampling. It also has limited natural value, because it contains mostly weedy vines and exotic
grasses.
Alternative IA, replacement of the bridge in the current location with a temporary on-site
detour located about 15.2 m (50 ft) north or south of the existing bridge will require clearing Mesic
pine/ hardwood forest. Temporary alignment on the south side would affect about 0.34 ha (0.85
ac) of Mesic pine/hardwood forest and about 0.06 ha (0.14 ac) of Roadside. A north alignment
would affect about 0.15 ha (0.36 ac) of Mesic pine/hardwood forest and 0.05 ha of Roadside
community. More loblolly pine trees over 30 years of age would be cut by locating the temporary
detour on the south side of SR 1428 but location on either side would remove such pines.
After construction is completed, the detour would be removed. How much of the area would
revert to the Mesic Pine/Hardwoods community would depend on how much of the cleared area
would not be mowed regularly. Assuming a future roadside such as now exists, 0.05 ha (0.1 ac)
of land immediately surrounding the new bridge would revert to the Roadside community. After
2-3 years, the Roadside community will have recovered to pre-construction levels of' species
richness. Area not mowed would return to pre-construction levels of species-richness in roughly
20-30 years, and no long-term net loss of Mcsic Pi nc/ Hard woods would occur, although
construction would create a younger age class.
Trees not cut but adjacent to cleared areas will probably show signs of- stress, due to
increased solar exposure and disturbance of the rooting environment. In extreme cases, some of
these trees could ultimately die and others could become wind thrown. This decline should not
cause significant environmental dama-e because (1) only selected, scattered trees will have extreme
symptoms, (2) most of the trees will recover within 2-5 years, and (3) trees that do not recover will
be naturally replaced by other trees.
No adverse impacts to floral populations are expected from either alternative or from
replacing the culvert, since (1) all species observed during the field investigation are common with
adequate populations outside of the impact area (sec sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2), (2) many plants arc
weedy and not native, and (3) no prime-quality or unique situations exist.
Faunal communities will be disrupted and displaced to the extent that habitat is reduced.
However, because the removal of forest habitat occurs along the edge of forest where large
contiguous acreages exist on either side of the project, relocation of species is more likely than
elimination. All species found at this site will be able disperse and therefore escape during
disruptive activities, and all would be likely to eventually return following the disturbance.
From an environmental perspective, Alternative 1 is preferred over Alternative IA.
However, potential impacts to biotic communities arc shall and temporary. The most serious
environmental factor affecting a decision concerning alternative selection is the matter of' removing
pine trees greater than 30 years of age, which could necessitate further survey work to ascertain the
status of the red-cockaded woodpecker in the vicinity. This matter will be discussed in §4?.
B-2505 8 August 8, 1994
4.0 Special Topics
This section addresses specific regulatory concerns related to jurisdictional wetlands and
protected species. Conclusions are offered based on careful consideration of observations and data
gathered on-site as well as published documentation available on each topic.
4.1 Waters of the US: Jurisdictional Issues
4. 1.1 Anticipated Impacts to Waters of the U.S.
No wetlands were discovered at the B-2505 project site. The soils are well drained, banks
arc steep, and overland flow is confined to well defined channels.
4.1.2 Anticipated Permit Requirements
Impacts to waters of the United States come undcr jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE). A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A)23 should be applicable to project
B-2505. This permit authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or
financed in whole, or in part, by another federal agency or department. That agency or department
has determined that the activity is categorically excluded from environmental documentation
because it will neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant environmental effect. A
North Carolina Department Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 (1665)
Water Quality General Certification is also required prior to issuance of the Nationwide Permit.
4.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
Project B-2505 does not involve any wetland beyond the bank to bank impact area, and this
area will be entirely spanned.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Under federal law, any federal action which is likely to result in a negative impact to federally
protected plants and animals is subject to review by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
under one or more provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. In the case of
state-funded action, where federal wetland permits arc likely to be required, for example, the
USFWS can require consultation to insure that the proposed action does not jeopardize any
endangered, threatened or protected species. Even in the absence of federal actions, the USFWS
has the power, through provisions of'Section 9 of the ESA, to exercise jurisdiction on behalf of a
protected plant or animal. The USFWS and other wildlife resource agencies also exercise
jurisdiction in this resource area in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48
Stat. 401, as amended; 16 USC 661 et seq). North Carolina laws are also designed to protect
certain plants and animals where statewide populations arc in decline.
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species
Several species are listed by the federal government for protection in Anson County:
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis , Bald eagle (Haliaeetus IeucoceRhalus), Shortnosc
sturgeon (AciWnser brevirostrum). Each is discussed below, and conclusions arc stated
concerning the effect this project would have.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis nesting colonies usually occur in mature
pine (preferably Longleaf) stands with open understories, contiguous with areas where pines
dominate the surrounding forest to provide suitable foraging habitat. "Suitable habitat consists of
pine or pine-hardwood (50 percent or more pine) stands 30 years of age or older" (Henry 1989).
Typically, however, colonies arc created in trees 60 years of age or older. Although some colonies
may be found in pine stands where midstory hardwood encroachment has occurred, this situation
is relatively rare.
As discussed in §3.1.1, the forest surrounding Bridge No. 169 provides potential habitat for
B-350 9 August 8, 1994
the red-cockaded woodpecker. While it does not appear to be optimal habitat, and no colony sites
arc recorded in the vicinity, the absence of red-cockaded woodpeckers cannot be assumed without
further examination. Stich an examination would be required if Alternative IA, calling for an
on-site detour, were selected because pine trees greater than 30 years old would have to be
removed to accommodate a detour on either side of the existing bridge. Selection of Alternative 1
would not necessitate such an examination, since an off-site detour and a replacement in place
would not remove any pine trees.
Biological Conclusion: Alternate 1 would have no effect on the rcd-cockaded
woodpecker. The effect of- Alternate IA cannot be determined without further field
examination as discussed above.
Bald eagles (Haliacetus leucocephalus) typically require large bodies of water with
abundant fish populations and roosting habitat in proximity to this food supply (Luukkonen et al.
1989). According to Luukkonen et al. (1989), "good perch trees are the most important
characteristics of forest stands for eagles." Eagles appear to prefer large, open-crowned perch
trees, and eagle roost habitat requires large trees with open structures at low densities. Studies
have shown that the critical flush distances for eagles are 137.2 meters for motorized boats, 220
meters for walking approaches. "Other researchers have reported that eagles were not significantly
disturbed by normally occurring auditory activities such is vehicular traffic, human vocalization, or
logging practices ...." (Luukkonen et al. 1989).
Habitat for the bald eagle does not occur proximal to the B-2505 project site.
Biological Conclusion: Project B-2505 will not af'f'ect Bald eagles.
The Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) inhabits lower sections of larger rivers
and coastal waters along the Atlantic seaboard from Canada to central Georgia. According to
Parker and Dixon (1980) "it may spend most of the year in brackish or salt water and move into
fresh water only to spawn." Feeding on invertberates and some plant material, the shortnosc
sturgeon is endangered because of pollution, over-fishing, and construction of dams on rivers it
uses for spawning.
Brown Creek enters the Pee Dec River above Blcwctt Falls Dam and Lakc. If'the shortnosc
sturgeon ever did occupy Brown Crcck, it cannot now make its migrations runs due to the dam.
Biological Conclusion: Project B-2505 will not al-feet the Shortnose sturgeon.
4.2.2 State Protected Species
A review of NC Natural Heritage Program office records concerning state-protected species
revealed no records of particular specimens at this site or within reasonable proximity. However,
the surrounding area has been identified as the Upper Brown Creek Priority Area. A High Quality
Stand reportedly exists in the area, and Moderate Biodiversity is exhibited. No remarkable
features were noted immediately around the bridge site, however, and the forest was determined to
be rather typical for its age (§3.1.1).
4.2.3 Federal Candidate Species
Bog spicebush (Lindera subcoriacca) is presently under review for possible listing and
protection as threatened or endangered.
Bog spicebush typically grows in acidic sandy or organic soils, where water seepage
from upslopc or small springs maintains seasonally or permanently moist conditions. The
headwaters and bottomlands of small blackwater streams are especially typical habitats. Associate
tree species generally include red maple, pond pine (Pines scrotina), sweetgtim (Liquidambar
styraciflua), redbay (Persca borbonia), yellow-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), loblolly pine
(Pinus tacda), and sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana). The understory contains species typical of'
B-3505 10 August 8, 1994
pocosin habitats: fetterbush (Lvonia lucida), ink-berry (Ilex glabra), dangleberry (Gaylussacia
frondosa , and cinnamon fern (Osmllnda cinnamomea).
Although some of the typical associate trees listed above were observed in the project area,
typical habitat for bog spicebush does not occur within the project area, since the pocosin-like soil,
moisture regime, and associate understory species are completely different.
During the field investigation bog spicebush was not observed; neither was the related
species, common spicebush (Lindcra benzoin), and thus the possibility of confusing these two
species does not exist. Records kept by the North Carolina Natural Heritage program do not
indicate known populations of bog spicebush within the project area.
Biological Conclusion: Typical bog spicebush habitat does not occur and the B-2505
project will not affect this plant.
4.2.5 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
So far as can be determined, action at the 8-2505 project site will have no impact on federally
or state-protected species. If Alternative 1 is selected, then a definite conclusion of no effect
would result. On the other hand, selection of Alternative IA would require additional field survey
work to determine the status of the red-cockaded woodpecker proximal to the project and pine trees
that would have to be removed.
5.0 References
Belanger, R. P. and R. L. Anderson. 1992. A guide for visually assessing crown densities of
loblolly and shortleaf pines. USDA, Southeast. For. Expt. Sta. Res. Note SE-352. 4 p.
Dilworth, J. R. and J. F. Bell. 1986. Log scaling and timber cruising. O. S. U. Book Stores,
Inc., Corvallis, OR. 468 p.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Technical
Report Y-87-1, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg MS.
Eyre, F.H. 1980. Forest cover types. Soc. Amer. For. Washington, D.C. 148 p
Henry, V. G. 1989. Guidelines for preparation of biological assessments and evaluations for
the Rcd-Cockaded Woodpecker. US Fish and Wilifc Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta,
GA. 13 p.+ appendices.
Luukkonen, D. R.; T. J. Smith; D. N. Chester; J. D. Fraser; and D. F. Stauffer. 1989.
Ecology, habitat and management of bald eagles at B. Everett Jordan Lake, North
Carolina. Project Final Report. Dept. Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.
NCDEM. 1991. Biological assessment of water quality in North Carolina streams: benthic
macroinvertebrate data base and long term changes in water quality, 1983-1990. NC
Dept. of Env., Health, and Nat. Res., Div. Env. Mgt., Water Qual. Sect., Raleigh, NC.
NCDEM. 1993. Classifications and water quality standards assigned to the waters of the
Yadkin-Pee Dec River basin. Division of Environmental Management, NC Department of'
Environmental Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
NCDEM. 1994. Miniature Subbasin Files. Correspondence from M. Toler-McCullen, Instream
Assessment Unit, Division of Environmental Management, NC Dept. Env. Health and Natl.
Res., Raleigh, NC.
B-2505 1 l August 8, 1991
Parker, W. and L. Dixon. 1980. Endangered and threatened wildlife of Kentucky, North
Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee. The NC Ag. Ext. Serv., North Carolina State
Univ., Raleigh, NC. 116 p.
Radford, A. E., H. A. Ahles, and C. R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. Univ. of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 1183 p.
Schafale, M. P. and A. S. Wcakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
America, Third Approximation. North Carolina Natl. Heritage Prog., Div. of Parks and
Recreat., NC Dept. of Environ., Health, and Natl. Resour. Raleigh. 325 p.

?.' ? yl Al(,
r Mr. Al Avant
f t± Program Development
Cass 13-7-0
?l
d l
-,i(?c"Y! Ito` loI,

JAMES B. HUNT. IR
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201. I'v%LEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
March 5, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mr. Al Avant
Program Development
L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SAM HUNT
SECRETARY
81993
Review of Scoping Sheet for Replacing Bridge No. 169,
SR 1428 over Brown Creek, Anson County, B-2505
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 April 6, 1993 at 2:00 P. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room. You may provide us with your
comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
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 Michele James, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
MJ/plr
Attachment
TRI

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE 3-5-93
REVISION DATE
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING
PLANNING x
DESIGN
TIP PROJECT B-2505
STATE PROJECT 8.2651201
F.A. PROJECT BRZ-1428(1)
DIVISION 10
COUNTY Anson
ROUTE SR 1428
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Replace Bridge No..169 on SR 1428
in Anson county over Brown Creek
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE
2. EXISTING LOCATION - ONSITE DETOUR
3. RELOCATION
4. OTHER
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ($) , M

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 500 VPD DESIGN YEAR(2016) 1000 VPD
TTST -2- -% DT 3
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION:
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 123 FEET; WIDTH 15.9 FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH FEET; WIDTH FEET
OR
CULVERT - LENGTH FEET; WIDTH FEET
DETOUR S TRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH FEET; WIDTH FEET
OR
PIPE - SIZE 0 INCHES
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES) ..................... $
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES AND
ACQUISITION) ................... $
TOTAL COST ....................................... $
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ............................... $ 375,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 20,000
PRIOR YEAKS COST ..................................... $
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................ $ 395,000

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: The hydraulic information will be provided
at the scoping meeting.
SR 1428 is classified as a rural local route.
PREPARED BY: Michele James
DATE: 3-5-93
3
53
3 ors

?To
f ?? ? ?? ? .easy
,?? 1-2#11
fo- e,

Tr L1 '} ? 7'° ? /-0
f;ika / U ll \ PEE DEE TIOWaI -
1/ v 1
! ?o Lili 14]a WILDUP XUU
T- 1122 171 E1
• ua- 11 lira ?? a/°w+t
01
e ? v tr 1ll4 - ? Cr,
., 112] L / % t?1r \ ). 1?1
L]9 ))) 1 161 f
11]7 ' lilt .?/ 7?7 L t .9
L11 1 h 1_71 / J v - w 1010
Liu p 7 y _ e
i ' 14!1
109. fI! 1.1_L
1i21 „i-??"' t 5 Anion C.
L Airport
711
J11 ? '? s 1!]-l ! J ? 142.'
7? [/I- Pinfuton
?1 v t POU(TON Lill Ju
uua:'f :<1 cs1 Ii1o ? u o
- 14 1
BRIDGE N0. 165. J7 '
I v ?'
?' D • v , /? 1!el / 14.3
1130 ` 1]19?•/i, 'I 717 /,p / 1
1171 MATCH
Illf_ „ 11e1?]ol 1411 .• U+f A
U 1 - ? ? ` 1
I10 1107 7i. :`...:
J'
J 1JL3 /1 73 .1
1\ 1_ .ate.:
?? 3, 5 0 DESB > Q ttT
.. ?1?6 c ?. ' X101 • FOP. Ad O° t.].
Q 11.0 !t
p1 0 I ?? 1103 17 IZ71
1.7L, -...I ? ,

6
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 169
ANSON COUNTY
B-2505
0 miles 2
1 1 1 FIG. 1

I
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA'CION
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP 6-1-11
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM. BLDG.
?ri( rr?)
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM. BLDG.
InQ(Pir P
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
I
e,,. SrnTFo?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR
JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
May 3, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
.a.l -.?3
ViETLANDS GROUP
E'rATER OUALITY SECTION
FATION
SAM HUNT
SECRETARY
FROM: Michele James
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Anson County, SR 1428, Bridge No. 169 over Brown Creek,
B-2505
A scoping meeting was held on April 6, 1993 to initiate the subject
project.
A list of those attending is as follows:
Kathy Lassiter
Jimmy Goodnight
Ray Moore
Robin Stancil
Betty Yancey
David Yow
Jerry Snead
Danny Rogers
Michele James
Eric Galamb
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Structure Design
DCR-SHPO
Right of Way
NCWRC-Habitat Conservation
Hydraulic Design
Program Development
Planning and Environmental
DEM
Based on available information, it appears that the one lane bridge
should be replaced at the existing location. Traffic should be detoured
along existing secondary roads.
The east approach to this bridge is across a floodplain. Several
comments were made about this area flooding. To improve the level of
service, the east approach roadway grade will need to be raised
approximately five feet and additional overflow pipes provided.
A preliminary cost estimate for the recommended replacement is
$570,000. The estimated cost contained in the Transportation Improvement
Program is $395,000.

t
May 3, 1993
Page 2
A list of alternatives to be studied is as follows:
1. Replacement at existing
local roads
2. Replacement at existing
side
location - detour traffic onto existing
location - on-site detour on the south
MJ/plr

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE 3-5-93
REVISION DATE 5-3-93
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING
PLANNING
DESIGN
TIP PROJECT B-2505
STATE PROJECT 8.2651201
F.A. PROJECT R - 2 1
DIVISION 10
COUNTY Anson
ROUTE SR 1428
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Replace Bridge No. 169 on SR 1428
in Anson County over Brown Creek
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE x
2. EXISTING LOCATION - ONSITE DETOUR
3. RELOCATION
4. OTHER
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO x
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ($) 1 M
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 500 VPD DESIGN YEAR(2016) 1000 VPD
TTST 2_ 8 DT 3 1
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION:
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 123 FEET;
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH 140 FEET;
OR
CULVERT - LENGTH FEET;
WIDTH 15.9 FEET
WIDTH 28 FEET
WIDTH
DETOUR STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH 120 FEET; WIDTH
OR
PIPE - SIZE @ INCHES
FEET
FEET
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES) ..................... $ 550,000
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES 20,000
AND ACQUISITION) ................... $
TOTAL COST ....................................... $ 570,000
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ............................... $ 375,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 20,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ..................................... $
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................ $ 395,000
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
SR 1428 is classified as a rural local route.
PREPARED BY: Michele James
DATE: 5-3-93