19950829 Ver 1_Complete File_19950808

:: g5g2q
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
August 3, 1995
401-ISSUED
Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Mr. G. Wayne Wright
Dear Sir:
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
Subject: Robeson County - Replacement of Bridges No. 39 & 67 over Shoe
Heel Creek on US 501; State Project No. 8.1462001; T.I.P.
No. B-2610
Attached for your information is a copy 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.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2745 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE
document to the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of.-Environmental Management, for their review.

August 3,-1995---
• " . Page 2
If you have any questions, please call Cyndi Bell at [phone],
Extension 306.
:Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/tp
Attachment
cc: Michael Hosey, COE, Wilmington Field Office
Eric Galamb, DEHNR, DEM
John Parker, DEHNR, DCM/Permit Coordinator
Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development-Branch - -
Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design
A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics
John L. Smith, Jr., P. E., Structure Design
Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design
W. F. Rosser, P. E., Division 6 Engineer
Richard W. Fedora, P. E., Planning & Environmental Branch
U.S. 501
Robeson County
Bridges No. 39 and 67
Over Shoe Heel Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-501(2)
State Project No. 8.1462001
T.I.P. Project No. B-2610
a
r
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
?, L 11
Date 7)?;r H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
C
W Date ? Ni as L. Graf, P.E., Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
U.S. 501
Robeson County
Bridges No. 39 and 67
Over Shoe Heel Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-501(2)
State Project No. 8.1462001
T.I.P. Project No. B-2610
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
April 1995
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Richard W. Fedora, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
Yv '.? h 2 G l?o?
Wayne lliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
y I/ A -
Lubin V. Prevatt, P.E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
.••'?CARS(
'??.oEESSrpy?9 "'•,
a r'
%
SE AL
1R. 20642
?,
? ••.FH?l NEE ,. ?O?F
U.S. 501
Robeson County
Bridges No. 39 and 67
Over Shoe Heel Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-501(2)
State Project No. 8.1462001
T.I.P. Project No. B-2610
1. SUMMARY OF PROJECT
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace
Bridge No. 39 and Bridge No. 67 in Robeson County. These bridges cross over Shoe Heel
Creek (Figure 1). NCDOT includes these bridges in the 1995-2001 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) as a bridge replacement project. NCDOT and the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) classify this project as a federal Categorical Exclusion.
These agencies expect no significant environmental impacts.
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 39 and Bridge No. 67 at the existing locations as
shown in Alternate 2, Figure 2. NCDOT recommends replacing each bridge with a new
bridge approximately 43 meters (140 feet) long with a 12-meter (40-foot) width. The
project will require approximately 61 meters (200 feet) of improvements to the roadway
approaches of each bridge. The new roadway approaches will have a 7.2-meter (24-foot)
wide travelway plus 2.4-meter (8-foot) wide shoulders. If the design requires guardrail, the
shoulders will be 3.4 meters (I 1 feet). The new bridges will be at approximately the same
grade as the existing bridges. The completed project will provide a design speed of
approximately 100 km/h (60 mph). Traffic will be maintained on temporary detours during
construction. The temporary structures will be four 1800 millimeter (72 inch) pipes located
north of the existing bridges. The design speed of the detours will be approximately 70
km/h (45 mph).
The estimated cost is $ 1,487,000. The estimated cost shown in the 1995-2001 TIP
is $ 735,000.
II. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
NCDOT expects no design exceptions for this project.
Ill. SUMMARY OF PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Best Management Practices will be implemented throughout construction.
The temporary detour fill will be removed after completion of the new bridges, and
the detour areas will be returned to natural grade and replanted with native vegetation.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401
Water Quality General Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Corps of
Engineers Nationwide Permit No. 23.
The recommended bridges are longer and at approximately the same elevation as
the existing bridges. Individual span lengths and vertical clearance should be at least the
same as the existing structures to maintain or increase the existing vertical and horizontal
clearances.
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS
NCDOT classifies U. S. 501 as a Principal Arterial in the Statewide Functional
Classification System.
Near Bridge No. 39 and Bridge No. 67, U. S. 501 is a two lane paved road, 6.1
meters (20 feet) wide with 1.2-meter (4.0-foot) shoulders. Vertical and horizontal
alignment in the area are both flat. The deck of Bridge No. 39 is 4.9 meters (16 feet) above
the stream bed. Water depth is approximately 0.6 meter (2.0 feet) at this bridge. The deck
of Bridge No. 67 is 4.6 meters (15 feet) above the stream bed. Water depth is
approximately 0.6 meter (2.0 feet) at this bridge.
NCDOT built both bridges in 1931. Each bridge has a reinforced concrete deck on
timber joists (Figure 3A and 3B). Each bridge is 31.7 meters (104 feet) long with a .
6.1-meter (20-foot) roadway width. Each carries two lanes of traffic. The posted load
limits on Bridge No. 39 are 24.5 metric tons (27 tons) for single vehicles and legal gross
weight for Truck-Tractor Semi-Trailers (TTST). The posted load limits on Bridge No. 67
are 30 metric tons (33 tons) for single vehicles and legal gross weight for TTST.
According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of Bridge
No. 39 is 31.4 of a possible 100.0 with an estimated remaining life of less than five years.
The sufficiency rating of Bridge No. 67 is 35.2, and the estimated remaining life is less than
five years.
The current traffic volume is 3,300 VPD, projected to 7,100 VPD for the year 2020.
Truck percentages are 3% TTST and 5% dual-tired vehicles. Speed limit in the area is 90
km/h (55 mph).
Traffic Engineering records indicate seven accidents occurred in the vicinity of the
bridges between I June 1991 and 31 May 1994. The accident rate during this period was
465.5 acc/100 MVM. This compares to a statewide average of 179.3 acc/100 MVM for
similar routes. Six of the seven accidents involved one of the two bridges.
The Transportation Director for Robeson County Schools indicated there are
12 school bus crossings daily (six buses crossing in the morning and afternoon).
V. ALTERNATES
There are two build alternates for replacing Bridge No. 39 and Bridge No. 67
(Figure 2):
Alternate 1 would replace the bridges at the existing locations. The replacement
structures would be bridges approximately 43 meters (140 feet) long with a 12-meter (40-
foot) wide travelway. The roadway approaches to each bridge would be widened to a 7.2-
meter (24-foot) wide travelway plus 2.4-meter (8-foot) shoulders. The new bridges and
roadway approaches would be at approximately the same grade as the existing roadway.
Traffic would be detoured during construction by closing U.S. 501 and detouring on area
roads as shown on Figure 1. The detour route would require approximately S 100,000 for
improvements including paving NC 81 and improving the intersection of NC 81 and NC
130. The design speed for this alternate would be approximately 100 km/h (60 mph).
Alternate 2 (Recommended) will replace the bridges at the existing locations as
shown in Alternate 2, Figure 2. Each bridge will be replaced with a bridge approximately
43 meters (140 feet) long with a 12-meter (40-foot) width. This alternate will require
approximately 61 meters (200 feet) of improvements to the roadway approaches of each
bridge. The new roadway approaches will have a 7.2-meter (24-foot) wide travelway plus
2.4-meter (8-foot) wide shoulders. If the design requires guardrail, the shoulders will be 3.4
meters (1 1 feet). The new bridges and roadway approaches will be at approximately the
same grade as the existing roadway. The completed project will provide a design speed of
approximately 100 km/h (60 mph). Traffic will be maintained on temporary detours during
construction. The temporary structures will be four 1800 millimeter (72 inch) pipes located
north of the existing bridges. The design speed of the detours will be approximately 70
km/h (45 mph).
The "do-nothing" alternate is not practical. The bridges would continue
deteriorating until unusable. This would require closing the road, or continued intensive
maintenance.
VI. COST ESTIMATES
TABLE 1 shows the estimated costs and component costs of the alternates.
TART F I CY)CT FCTIMATF?
.r COMPONENT ALTERNATE I ALTERNATE 2
RECOMMENDED
BRIDGES $ 743,000 $ 743,000
BRIDGE REMOVAL 34,400 34,400
TEMPORARY DETOURS ---------- 271,000
OFF-SITE DETOUR
IMPROVEMENTS 100,000 ----------
ROADWAY AND
APPROACHES 186,600 186,600
ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES 136,000 215,000
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $ 1200 000 $ 1,450,000
RIGHT OF WAY $ 26,000 $ 37,000
TOTAL COST ESTIMATE $ 1,226 000 $ 1,487,000
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 39 and Bridge No. 67 at the existing locations as
shown in Alternate 2, Figure 2. Traffic will be maintained on temporary detours during
construction. The temporary structures will be four 1800 millimeter (72 inch) pipes located
north of the existing bridges. The detour alignments will be approximately 215 meters (705
feet) long and one meter (3.0 feet) lower than the existing roadway. The design speed of
the detours will be approximately 70 km/h (45 mph).
NCDOT will replace each bridge with a bridge approximately 43 meters (140 feet)
long with a 12-meter (40-foot) width. The project will require approximately 61 meters
(200 feet) of improvements to the roadway approaches of each bridge.
The new roadway approaches will have a 7.2-meter (24-foot) wide travelway plus
2.4-meter (8-foot) shoulders. If the design requires guardrail, the shoulders will be 3.4
meters (11 feet) wide. The new roadway approaches will be at approximately the same
grade as the existing roadway. The completed project will provide a design speed of
approximately 100 km/h (60 mph).
NCDOT recommends Alternate 2 because it will avoid causing 3.7 kilometers (2.3
miles) of additional travel for the 3,700 vehicle per day estimated for the construction year
1997. Of these vehicles, approximately 300 will be trucks. The vehicles would incur user
costs of approximately $689,300 during the construction period, if the road is closed. The
ratio of user costs saved to additional project costs for providing temporary on-site detours
(estimated at $261,000) is 2.6 to 1. The detour route shown in Figure 1 is on lower
classification level roads than U. S. 501, which is an arterial. These roads would not
provide adequate service for the vehicles using this arterial.
The division engineer concurs with the Alternate 2 recommendation.
Construction of Alternate 2 will not increase the 100-year flood elevation by more
than 30 centimeters (12 inches). Figure 4 shows the 100-year flood boundaries.
Construction of Alternate 2 will not place significant amounts of fill in the floodplain area.
NCDOT expects utility conflicts to be low.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) requests that the
span lengths of the new bridges be the same length or longer than the existing spans. The
NCWRC also requests the vertical clearance of the new bridges be the same or greater than
the existing bridges. The recommended bridges are longer bridges and at approximately the
same elevation as the existing bridges. Individual span lengths and vertical clearance should
be at least the same as the existing structures. These will be determined in final design.
VIII. NATURAL SYSTEMS CHARACTERISTICS AND EFFECTS
A. Overview
NCDOT staff biologists conducted research prior to field investigations. Information
sources used in this pre-field investigation of the study area include: U.S. Geological
Survey quadrangle maps (Johns and Maxton), NCDOT aerial photographs of project area
(1:1200), and Soil Conservation Service soil maps of Robeson County. The biologists
obtained water resource information from publications of the Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR, 1993) and from the N. C. Center for Geographic
Information and Analysis (Environmental Sensitivity Base Map of Robeson County). The
biologists also gathered information concerning the occurrence of federal and state
protected species in the study area. This information came from the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of protected and candidate species and the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare species and unique habitats.
The staff biologists conducted.general field surveys along the proposed alignment on
28 September 1994. They identified and recorded plant communities and associated
wildlife. Wildlife identification involved using one or more of these observation techniques:
active searching, identifying characteristic signs of wildlife, and visual observations. They
used delineation criteria prescribed in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual"
(Emlronmental Laboratory, 1987) to perform jurisdictional wetland determinations.
B. Soils and Topography
The project area is contained within one specific soil mapping unit, Johnston soils.
Johnston soils is a specific soil mapping unit containing hydric soils or soils having hydric
soils as a major component. The characterization of these soils is nearly level and very
poorly drained. Soils of this specific mapping unit are commonly found on flood plains.
Robeson County lies in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. The
characterization of the topography in Robeson County is nearly level to gently sloping
terrain.
C. Biotic Communities
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section describes
ecosystems encountered in the study area and the relationships between fauna and flora
within these ecosystems. Composition and distribution of biotic communities throughout
the project area reflect topography, hydrologic influences, and past and present land uses in
the study area.
1. Terrestrial Communities
The biologists identified two distinct terrestrial communities in the project area:
Cypress/gum Swamp and Maintained. Many faunal species are highly adaptive and may
populate the entire range of terrestrial communities discussed.
The low, vegetative diversity found in blackwater cypress/gum swamps directly
relates to the flooding frequently experienced in this community (dense shade and
continuous inundation precludes succession of all but the most hydrophytic species).
Cypress/gum swamps, are not subject to frequent natural disturbances, and the frequent
inundation occurring in this community precludes normal succession-related propagation.
Logging has reduced the number of bald cypress in this swamp, as evidenced by tree
stumps. The lack of bald cypress has allowed water tupelo to dominate the canopy.
Other trees found in the canopy of this cypress/gum swamp are sweet-gum, tulip
poplar, and red maple. Pond pine and loblolly pine are sparsely scattered in the canopy as
well. The sub-canopy contains American holly, red bay, elderberry, tulip poplar, privet, and
titi.
The vine/herb layer of this swamp has moderate cover, with sensitive fern, and
netted chain-fern most prevalent. Other plants in this layer include cinnamon fern, royal
fern, greenbrier, microstegium, poison ivy, cross vine and giant cane. Drier community
herbs, such as false nettle, are found growing on logs and stumps. Resurrection fern is an
epiphyte living on trees within the swamp.
Swamp communities exhibit fairly diverse assemblages of animals. Mammals found
in this habitat include rodents such as golden mouse, cotton mouse and marsh rice rat.
Other mammals which potentially frequent here include marsh rabbit, raccoon, Virginia
opossum, white-tailed deer, and mink.
Reptiles living in cypress swamps may include the mud snake and rainbow snake.
Canebrake snakes occur in diverse habitats including swamps. These snakes hide in stump
holes and under various surface cover. Cottonmouths live in a variety of aquatic and
semiaquatic habitats and are abundant in swamp communities.
Swamp communities provide habitat for a variety of amphibians which are adapted
to moist environments. Amphibians use pools and the moist environment left from
retreating waters to deposit eggs. Salamanders potentially found in this community include
the southern dusky salamander, dwarf salamander, and many-lined salamander. Spring
peeper, Brimley's chorus frog, and eastern narrowmouth toad also frequent swamp habitats.
Numerous bird species frequent the swamp communities for a variety of reasons,
including forage and shelter opportunities. A common permanent resident of this
community is the barred owl. Woodpeckers known to occur in swamps include pileated
woodpeckers, hairy woodpeckers, and downy woodpeckers. Other birds potentially found
here include yellow-throated warbler and Carolina wren. American robin, European
starling, and rusty blackbird often flock and roost in this habitat after breeding season
during their migration.
U.S. 501 bisects the cypress/gum swamp. The roadway is elevated from the
cypress/gum community by fill material. The maintained community constitutes the road
shoulders and slopes found in the study area. The plant species evident in this community
sharply contrast those of the cypress/gum community because they are associated directly
with the roadway and human disturbance. Early successional species like Bermuda grass
dominate the road shoulder. Other opportunistic species growing in this community include
mugwort, lespedeza, sneeze-weed, rabbit tobacco, wild onion, dayflower, goldenrod,
beggar ticks, and ragweed.
Upland plant species are found growing on the slopes associated with the roadway.
Shrubs such as sassafras, winged sumac, and beauty-berry populate the slopes as well as
ebony spleenwort, morning glory, grape, pokeweed, trumpet vine, and Japanese
honeysuckle. China-berry, an escaped ornamental, can also be found growing along the
slopes in numerous locations.
Faunal overlap occurs between the maintained community and the cypress/gum
swamp. This overlap exists because the maintained habitat is limited in size and because the
cypress/gum community surrounds it. The fauna in the maintained community include those
species migrating across the roadway and occupying the habitat for foraging and sheltering
purposes. Some mammal species such as the marsh rice rat, golden mouse and cotton
mouse may frequent here and use the brush piles and thickets of greenbrier, grape, trumpet
vine and Japanese honeysuckle for shelter and food. The presence of these rodents attracts
predators such as barred owl, canebrake snake and cottonmouth to visit this habitat in
search of food. Avian species such as yellow-throated warbler and American robin may
also frequent this community to forage on berries and insects.
2. Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community type, blackwater perennial stream, will be impacted by the
proposed project. Physical characteristics of the water body and condition of the water
resource influence faunal composition of the aquatic communities. Terrestrial communities
adjacent to a water resource also greatly influence aquatic communities.
Arrowhead grows in the water at the bridges. Thoroughwort, microstegium, and
giant reed grow on sandbars. These sandbars are frequently flooded, thus providing
vegetation for fish species to use for shelter and food.
A variety of fish species can be found in these streams because the streams are clear,
having a sandy substrate and aquatic vegetation. These species include chain pickerel,
redfin pickerel, 1roncolor shiner, spotted sucker, yellow bullhead, swampfish, and pirate
perch.
Other species such as eastern mudminnow and golden shiner are found mainly along
the banks. Adult largemouth bass feed on other fish while war-mouth feed on small fish,
crayfish and aquatic insects. Pirate perch hide in vegetation and debris by day while
emerging in darkness to feed. American eel inhabits fresh water streams but returns to sea
to spawn.
Many reptiles may use debris situated in the water for thermoregulation. The
yellowbelly slider is especially fond of basking and is omnivorous. Snapping turtles are
common in fresh water streams, feeding on small vertebrates and aquatic plants. Brown
water snakes may be found basking themselves on limbs over the water. Fish are the
favorite prey of brown water snakes and banded water snakes, which may also feed on
amphibians.
3. Biotic Community Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic resources
described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have the potential
to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural
resources in terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent
impacts are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of each
community present in the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Table 2 summarizes potential quantitative
losses to these biotic communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated impacts
are derived using the dimensions for the proposed new facility. Anticipated temporary
impacts for the on-site detours are derived using a temporary easement width of 21 meters
(60 feet). Usually, project construction does not require the entire right of way, therefore,
actual impacts may be less.
TABLE 2 Antici ated lm )acts to Biotic Communities
COMMUNITY ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2
Permanent Temp
orary
Cypress/Gum Swam 0.19 ha 0.47 ac 0.19 ha 0.47 ac 0.55 ha 1.38 ac
Maintained 0.08 ha 0.20 ac 0.08 ha 0.20 ac 0.00 ha 0.00 ac
TOTAL IMPACTS 0.27 ha 0.67 ac 0.27 ha 0.67 ac 0.55 ha 1.38 ac
Alternative 2 will have greater quantitative, as well as qualitative impacts upon the
community types. The impacts from Alternative 1 will occur with either alternative because
the proposed action warrants the need to widen the approaches to the bridges and to
stabilize the slope. The impacts to the maintained community will be temporary because
this community will be recreated by the construction. Re-creation of this community will
allow for similar vegetation to return. The area of this habitat will, in fact, be larger after
construction because slope stabilization will provide habitat for early successional
vegetation.
7
The potential impacts from Alternative 2 are not only temporary but potentially long
term. The on-site detours will greatly effect the cypress/gum community. Although fill
from on-site detours will be removed following construction, the clearing of trees and other
habitat disturbances to implement the detours will be harmful. As stated earlier in the
community description, these communities recover very slowly from any type of
disturbance. Wildlife in the project area will be displaced and move further into the swamp.
Aquatic communities are sensitive to even small changes in their environment.
Construction-related fills, siltation, sedimentation, and erosion not only effect water quality
but the biological constituents as well. Although these actions may be temporary processes
during the construction phase of the project, environmental impacts from these processes
may be long term or irreversible.
In-stream water construction affects the stream substrate and usually results in the
removal or burial of vegetation. These actions can drastically alter an aquatic environment.
The loss of substrate and aquatic vegetation disturbs aquatic microscopic invertebrates,
many of which are sessile and attached to the substrate and/or benthic vegetation.
Siltation occurs when sediments enter the stream and/or its water column, resulting
from actions such as erosion. Siltation may result in the formation of sandbars at the project
site or downstream. Sandbars alter current flow and potentially modify the bank/shoreline
and its vegetation.
Siltation affects aquatic species in diverse ways. Sediments in the water column
absorb sunlight and limit its penetration to aquatic vegetation. Insufficient amounts of
sunlight depress the growth of photosynthetic species. The lack of vegetative growth not
only affects the food chain of aquatic species but terrestrial species as well. Excessive
sediments in the water column can clog the feeding aparati of sessile filter-feeders and
deposit-feeders. These organisms are slow to recover or repopulate a stream. Mobile
organisms may be impacted as well. The gills of these species may become clogged or
dysfunctional from the excess sediment. Siltation may disturb and fill spawning habitat with
sediment, thus diminishing reproductive success and eventually reducing populations.
D. Water Resources
This section contains information concerning water resources likely to be impacted
by the project. Water resource information encompasses physical aspects of the resource,
its relationship to major water systems, Best Usage Standards, and water quality of the
resources. Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as are means to
minimize impacts.
The water resource found in the project study area is Shoe Heel Creek. This creek
lies in the Lumber River Basin and is a perennial Coastal Plain stream. Bridge No. 67
traverses the main channel of Shoe Heel Creek while Bridge No. 39 crosses a meander of
the creek. This blackwater stream has a sandy substrate, stained water color and
concentration of organic matter (sticks, leaves, etc.). The main channel of Shoe Heel Creek
has a width of 5.5 meters (18.0 feet) and a depth of 1.5 to 1.8 meters (5.0 to 6.0 feet). The
meander has a width of 3.0 to 3.6 meters (10.0 to 12.0 feet) and a depth of 0.6 to 0.9
meters (2.0 to 3.0 feet).
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of
Environmental Management (DEM). Shoe Heel Creek has a best usage classification of
Class C Sw. Class C refers to waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival,
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture; Sw is a supplemental water
8
classification including waters which have low velocities and other natural characteristics
which are different from adjacent streams. Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water
Supplies (WS-I or WS-II), or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within
1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile) of project study area.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed by DEM
and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses long
term trends in water quality. The program assesses water quality by sampling for selected
benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites. Macroinvertebrates are
sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species richness and overall
biomass reflect water quality. Shoe Heel Creek received a BMAN bioclass grade of
"Good" in a September 1991 sampling. This sample was taken approximately 7.7
kilometers (4.8 miles) downstream of the project study area.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger, is
required to register for a permit. Several dischargers are used for Shoe Heel Creek,
upstream of the project study area. These dischargers include water treatment plants
located in Laurinburg and Maxton. The nearest of these dischargers is in Maxton,
approximately 7.7 kilometers (4.8 miles) upstream of the study area. These treatment
plants have respective design flows of 4.0 and 0.6 million gallons daily. Wastewaters
discharged into the stream include municipal, non-contact cooling water and condensate,
textile, and rubber processing.
The degree of anticipated impacts to water resources will depend on the alternative
chosen. Construction from either alternative will cause increased concentrations of toxic
compounds (oil, gas, etc.). Increased amounts of these compounds can adversely alter the
water quality of the water resource thus impacting biological qualities. Measures, such as
Best Management Practices (BMPs), should be taken to ensure that large quantities of these
toxins are not washed into Shoe Heel Creek.
Both proposed actions will involve in-stream construction activities which may
include dredging, filling, pile driving operations, and slope stabilization. Bridge replacement
on existing location will increase sedimentation and erosion, and potentially cause flow
changes in Shoe Heel Creek and its meander. However, greater impacts to water resources
will result from the proposed on-site detour in Alternative 2 because there is the need to
install a new stream crossing. Bank vegetation may be removed from construction or
buried by fill as a result of bridge replacement on existing location. Additional vegetation
will be destroyed by installing on-site detours. The destruction of bank vegetation will
increase erosion from the stream banks which will contribute to sedimentation and siltation
of the waters. The elimination of streamside vegetation will lead to more exposure of water
to sunlight, which can result in elevation of water temperatures and numerous other indirect
consequences. Flow changes may also occur from erosion or from the use of fill for the on-
site detour. Each of these factors can contribute to a loss of aquatic life which may
potentially effect terrestrial species too.
BMPs and Sedimentation Control guidelines should be strictly applied to reduce
the wash of sediment into the Shoe Heel Creek.
E. Jurisdictional Issues
1. Wetlands and Surface Waters
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3. Any
action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344).
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology. The cypress/gum swamp has a NWI classification of
palustrine, broad-leaved deciduous forest and seasonally flooded (PFOIC). Evidence used
to determine presence of wetlands includes the predominance of obligate vegetation (water
tupelo, bald cypress, royal fern, sensitive fern, arrowhead, netted chain fern), hydric soils,
and hydrology (buttressed roots and leaf stains).
DEM has instituted a numerical rating system from 0-100 to gauge wetland quality.
This rating system is heavily weighted towards water storage, pollutant removal,
bank/shoreline stabilization, and aquatic life functional aspects of a wetland community.
Other wetland attributes considered are wildlife habitat, recreational/educational value, and
economic value. This wetland community has a quality rating of 76.25.
Anticipated impacts to wetlands are 0.19 ha (0.47 ac) for Alternative 1 and 0.74 ha
(1.85 ac) for Alternative 2. The increase in wetland impacts for Alternative 2 are attributed
to the proposed temporary on-site detour.
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters are anticipated. In accordance
with provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be
required from the COE for the discharge of dredged 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 resulting from the proposed project.
This project will require a 401 Water Quality General Certification from the DEM
prior to the issuance of the Nationwide permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or
licensed activity that may result in a discharge to the Waters of the United States.
Impacts to wetlands are unavoidable because the proposed project necessitates the
widening of the bridge approaches. The selection of Alternative 1 would minimize impacts
to the cypress/gum swamp.
Authorizations under Nationwide Permits usually do not require compensatory
mitigation according to the 1989 Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of the Army (COE). Final decisions
concerning mitigation rest with the COE.
2. Federally Protected Species
Federal law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-
to
protected, be subject to review by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
Other species may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
Provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended protect plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT). As of 28
March 1995, the USFWS lists the following federally-protected species for Robeson
County (Table 2). A brief description of each species characteristics and habitat follows.
TABLE 3 Federally-Protected Species for Robeson County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E
A review of the Natural Heritage Program database of uncommon and protected
species revealed no recorded occurrence of federally-protected species in or near the project
study area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No habitat for red-cockaded woodpecker exists in the project area. No impact to
red-cockaded woodpecker will result from construction of the subject project. No habitat
for Michaux's sumac exists in the project area. No impact to Michaux's sumac will result
from construction of the subject project.
F. Air and Noise
The project is in the Sandhills Air Quality Control Region. The ambient air quality
for Robeson County is in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
This project is in an area where the State Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any
transportation control measures. NCDOT and the FHWA do not anticipate that it will
create any adverse effect on the air quality of this attainment area.
The impact on air quality will be insignificant. If the project disposes of vegetation
by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and
regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
This evaluation completes the assessment requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act
amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act. The project requires no additional
reports.
The project will not significantly increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will have no
significant impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during
construction.
IX. CULTURAL RESOURCES AND EFFECTS
A. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies, or their
representatives, to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on
prime and important farmland soils, as designated by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service
(SCS). Soils that flood, or are poorly drained, may only meet the requirements for prime
farmland if drained or protected from frequent flooding during the growing season. Neither
of these conditions apply to the very wet Johnston soils occurring at both bridge sites.
Therefore, the project requires no further consideration of farmland impacts.
B. Historic Architectural and Archaeological Resources
An NCDOT staff architectural historian reviewed in the field the area of potential
effect (APE) for the project. Bridge No. 39 and Bridge No. 67 are the only properties over
fifty years of age in the APE. At a meeting held on 5 January 1995, representatives from
NCDOT and the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) signed a
concurrence form stating that both bridges are not eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places (see Appendix for copy of form).
The SHPO recommended no surveys for archaeological resources.
Since there are no properties on or eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places within the APE, the project requires no further compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.
X. CONCLUSION
Based on the above discussion, NCDOT and FHWA conclude that the project will
cause no significant environmental impacts. Therefore, the project may be processed as a
Categorical Exclusion.
WF/plr
12
FIGURES
I 4v,
F r on`
rid8er ° 11 301
? 7.
-? ? 5 Rex 7
sRetlSprin_
gs 'Shannon
O 0.5t. f) Ma
NORTH CAROLINA
l30 R buie ®=v .,
e z 15 E z i r?r.
3 v.s.u. 0
? 3 e
broke tt N
Rae n 1 2
to?era.;?'? ?. 1 f
501 11 I4 to t 3? 41
urvi
Q a 3 " ?; " a+ ?pert
3 Raynhan 301 * LVI?
7T
? 1 r b8 ? 1 a 3 (lent B G,
IMl 1? \ 1 1 1 ?? ,wlan ? s 14 t •Id ?s
_6 93 41 1 74 i7 *a ?? D
,? Mi e5 3
js ?j ,y1 ,io 3 C Fairmont 10 3
P`?a 2 1j ,? .?,.0 .•?'? 3 . root vii i 8. y ik1
?-.3 ?. c 7 `? s 7 OrrB Idm ?
v
6
Barn
p0 GO \2 ariett b rob ^
1 rc0 GO •
T?\
5c,0 i
T. 0e ?J
? doe
f . to
.? Sq
5 FqS ,3? 7• r
S CV
BRIDGE N .39
Sep \6q Big Sh°e ° ??5%
? o? a,off /.8
4 BRIDGE NO. 67
•` ?IS y 5
s ? ? `,
.`
c ?q 1:5
%
L4.
79°25' , 05. Ot 4e NN
F' ? G ° 1
+?-+ STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
Lis 501
BRIDGES NO. 39 AND 67
OVER SLOE HEEL CREED
T.I.P. NO. B-2610 FIG 1
0 kilometers 1.6 0 miles 1
1 1 1 1 1
j r ` $?? •'??? .r? ?.,? 5 .k' r # y? ,?. ,t?.u ._-1 1? •3'"SY <? ''.}•`, t. ?d'`?;' &{fi ?.?.. s?? t.. ?.
e,Ki ?, k r
fit,
e ?
?: ,. •-? ? .:???. ? ?f'q, i F v ? ?a <' ? ,, ' d .... t ; ;*` ?'r?•, rte; ?x
i ?' ? ? ,? ? '?a .. ? ,aim'; ? v 4 .t 1 •?.c f 1 F s ro ay! ?? ? q 3? "?-`{?? ?" ,}"(
iNz
BRIDGE NO. 39
ROBESON COUNTY
B-2610
LOOKING NORTHEAST
SIDEVIE
LOOKING SOUTHWEST
FIGLaE 3A
BRIDGE NO. 67
ROBESON COUNTY
B-2610
LOOKING NOR'THEAS'T
STDE171EW
LOOKING SOUTHWEST
FIGUR B

i \ ZC,NE X
BRIDGE NO. 67

ZONE X

I
ZONE X
100-YEAR FLOOD LAIN LIMITS
BRIDGE NO. 39
?I
ZON
ZONE X
c
ZONE A
FIf.CREJ 1,
APPENDIX
/TIP Federal Aid # r5p"frp- 9;C1 LZ) County

CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description
?-er u,& l3Rtytrms 4c. &I ANO 4c ••3-1 oo uri rwi oyGU-
9r?ci: NECar G?EWL
On _AatJJAU , M11 , representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
V, North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
? there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as V r_iyq r ale. V1 AND DatD&C ge • •-5-1 . are
considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of therms necessary.
? there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
Representative, NCDOT Date
Date

ve,
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
,7.
T
e
.. al

1VVL t. 17 `Q??., .. .11 :1

A l a a!• J ..., .., J 1 ..
_iL•.j j•'?1_S JL 3y.. .
u 1LiiL. _iili:•i'C3u COIiCI-tt~.? iioC`!i-
_.lu
- r i=3ai1
r1t L•i. 1. ..M1? ?c1 ^.C
.1n r;-:.
? L
n...
I
•
L.1 CC,{Ipi VL i..a/? V. .%l:l.ll •r ..

'- 17 ?Tf^. -A wl. L
M..
1

om 4
:
_ t
7..ct. ?. L•4..1. j-
r.. ?^!_ - Ll,. _... L ?L 1 E= L... 0
L U y1G .
NEM dlil!+fl ??31V?A
dlilOdD S ONVI13M

V6619 -lei(

Ir,

lMOd3M ONV 31V911S3AN1 'Ni
3UnIVN91S ? 3M(71YNDIS
SIN3WWO:, an0A MO-4
NOIIVWMOdNI HnOA MOd SIHl J
IYAOMddY Mf10A MOd Sl IIt
1S3n03M 8f10A Mad '.3
NOIIVSM3AN03 UnO Mad ?
NOll::)V

'9016 SWOON NO 'ON "J38
w?a
'9018 'WOOM NO 'ON •d
3M
I ,
Y
dlS
Iva
uoisVzxoasudxz 3o i aKLUVaaa •a u
? f
!M
M swto
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
July 5, 1994
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
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 Replacement of Bridge
No. 39 and Bridge No. 67 on US 501 over Shoe Heel
Creek, Robeson County, T.I.P. No. B-2610
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 August 3, 1994 at 10:00 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.
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, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
WF/plr
Attachment
C1SU4x

31e4
f
•
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE 06/15/94
REVISION DATE:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING:
PLANNING: X
TIP PROJECT:
F. A. PROJECT:
STATE PROJECT:
DIVISION:
COUNTY:
ROUTE:
PURPOSE:
DESCRIPTION:
$??A
Y
COMMENTS:
DESIGN:
B-2610
?$fo - w bZ
SIX
ROBESON
US 501
REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
US 501, BRIDGE NO. 39, AND BRIDGE NO. 67 COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGES OVER SHOE HEEL CREEK
:x,31
USGS QUAD SHEET: JOHNS and MAXTON
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 X
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ($) , M

BRIDGE _
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
X-h
/
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 00 VPD; DESIGN YEAR VPD
TTST DT%
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION:
EXISTING STRUCTURES: LENGTH 31.7 Meters WIDTH 7 Meters
104 Feet 23 Feet
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH Meters WIDTH Meters
Feet Feet
OR
CULVERT - LENGTH
DETOUR STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH
X Meters
?f?? Z t/
X Feet
_ Meters Z
Feet APM
G?VC
OR
PIPE - SIZE
Millimeters
Inches
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES) ..................... $
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION., UTILITIES,
AND ACQUISITION) ................... $
FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS .................................. $
TOTAL COST ....................................... $
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ................................ $
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $
SUB TOTAL ........................................... $
PRIOR YEARS COST ..................................... $
/ TIP TOTAL COST ........................................ $ 735.000
crasn' r-L4( 1--t r7-??
C° terns ? q$'
?V n!//fN.vnnO?< i ?!' IZ?? .,1 ?? /1?J ?linl.9!'i..?G
r
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
US 501
BRIDGE NO. 39 AND
BRIDGE NO. 67 OVER
SHOE HEEL CREEK
ROBESON COUNTY
T. 1. P. NO. 2610 FIG. 1
0 kilometers 3 0 miles 2
1 1 1 1 1 1
\\? ?? ?"mar/ ? '?l \? y?i' °? _ ? •_
11' \ ?. ant F `= vh
-! 1 ''• \
il*X
176
-4 78 y
•' Mac 75 it \
Hasi
173 IN
AjAmw-
171
7il
k 70-
-4, s CH
76
..-yam...
'125..
Ce
s) / t ? -il ,w- ;? •. Yfidw•aY C1i?
\ `a \... ? R\ h- - .? - _? ' '.:ur• -?-?-"'y„ III i ^? -=?%~ `_-
` Ala' /-`-_x .
??\J e. "` - ( - - r/"- ?•J /I( }?.r?.- /I -v'? y._. 167 6
?91(/- /fit /
r, -13 \ -
1.) AV
BM163
y,? r
\-. ?- ?! -? ?1:? ??; ?(? -- ? ?1/60 _ -•, ,/ -- "- ? _ -

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
August 17, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: Wayne Fedora
Planning and Environmental Branch
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting for Replacement of Bridge No. 39 and
Bridge No. 67 on US 501 over Shoe Heel Creek, Robeson
County, Federal Aid No. BRSTP-501(1), State Project
8.1462001, B-2610
The Planning and Environmental Branch held a scoping meeting on
August 3, 1994 to initiate the subject project.
Based on consultation with those attending the meeting, the Project
Planning Engineer decided on two alternates for replacement. Alternate 1
would replace each bridge on the existing location with road closure and
detouring of traffic as shown in Figure 1. Alternate 2 would replace each
bridge in the existing location with one temporary on-site detour around each
bridge. Each replacement structure will be a bridge approximately 43 meters
(140 feet) long, with a 12-meter (40-foot) wide travelway. The grade of the
new bridges will be approximately the same as the existing bridges.
The Roadway Design Unit is preparing a cost estimate for each alternate.
Ms. Stancil commented that in terms of historic architectural resources,
there are no historic structures in the project area. The bridges are over
50 years old, but the SHPO considers neither eligible for the National
Register. The SHPO recommends no survey for historic architectural
resources. There are no recorded archaeological sites in proximity to the
bridge. SHPO recommends no survey for archaeological resources.
Mr. Galamb commented that the Division of Environmental Management
classifies Shoe Heel Creek as Class C, swamp. This classification requires
normal soil and erosion control methods. He recommended road closure, and
commented that if NCDOT constructs temporary detours, the fill be removed and
the area revegetated.
?1%
August 17, 1994
Page 2
Mr. Cox of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC)
called Mr. Fedora with comments. He commented that the agency prefers no
on-site detours be constructed. He also indicated a preference for bridges
rather than culvert replacement structures. Lastly, the agency prefers that
the current span lengths be retained or increased and the current
navigational clearance be retained or increased.
Mr. Taylor indicated there is a utility line south of the existing
alignment. Therefore, any on-site detour should be located to the north of
the existing alignment.
Ms. Tracey Conrad, the Division 6 construction engineer, commented on
the detour route marked in Figure 1. She indicated NC 130 should be
resurfaced, the NC 83-NC 130 intersection needs improvements, possibly
including a flasher, and that US 501 south may need to be made a stop
condition at the US 501-NC 130 intersection to allow detour traffic to be a
through movement.
The current project schedule is for letting in fiscal year 1998.
WF/plr
Attachment
Attachments Attendance Sheet
Scoping Meeting--B-2610
August 3, 1994
Imad Abouyounis
John Taylor
Danny Rogers
Tom Kunstling
Eric Galamb
Robin Stancil
Brian Williford
Rudolph Holley, Jr.
Wayne Fedora
Roadway Design
Location and Surveys
Program Development
Traffic Control
DEM
DCR-SHPO
Hydraulics
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
a. a
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE 06/15/94
REVISION DATE: 08/08/94
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING:
PLANNING: X
DESIGN:
TIP PROJECT: B-2610
F. A. PROJECT: BRSTP-501(2)
STATE PROJECT: 8.1462001
DIVISION: SIX
COUNTY: ROBESON
ROUTE: US 501
PURPOSE: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION: US 501, BRIDGE NO. 39, AND BRIDGE NO. 67 COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGES OVER SHOE HEEL CREEK
COMMENTS:
USGS QUAD SHEET: JOHNS and MAXTON
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
ALT. 1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE X
ALT. 2. EXISTING LOCATION - ONSITE DETOUR X
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 (%)

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 3300 VPD; DESIGN YEAR 7100 VPD
TTST 3 % DT 5 %
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION:
EXISTING STRUCTURES: LENGTH 31.7 Meters WIDTH 7 Meters
104 Feet 23 Feet
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH 43 Meters WIDTH 12 Meters
140 Feet 40 Feet
OR
CULVERT - LENGTH X Meters
X Feet
DETOUR STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH Meters
Feet
OR
PIPE - SIZE 1800 Millimeters
72 Inches
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES) ..................... $
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES,
AND ACQUISITION) ................... $
FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS .................................. $
TOTAL COST ....................................... $
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ................................ $ 700,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 35,000
SUB TOTAL ........................................... $ 735,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ..................................... $
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................ $ 735,000
/0 y
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
US 501
BRIDGE NO. 39 AND
BRIDGE NO. 67 OVER
SHOE HEEL CREEK
ROBESON COUNTY
T. I. P. NO. 2610 FIG. 1
0 kilometers 3 0 miles 2
1 i 1 1
g?t
At-
TllTnout
If,
110
-?.. .
`/78 Mac
_ c
175
71 p
?i? :r 1 \ Hasion h - \- --y`- i n__ rr \
73
?Ilzl
-?/ ^?`,_/-"(,- ' \\ ?. -• _ r -? --?' _ J t\ ,fi/r. ` •.?
1171
Ql-
dk- All-
70
, /7p - `•'•`'-?, _ -- -' _--. ice' ?.'(\ ?_.? .\• 'a,??.'
- r\ . _---` ? \ •-?.- -? `""',?• -x?.- ,,? - ? !? ` Vii,` ;
' i125
\i' "^` \\\ 1 1t a o 'W". ?i.-• - Jar ?_?i? •'i;? •I CF
t'_ - .=' •il ,u.-.-•yr•?,? ,?W ??-u. 1 (' \ ? 1 ? D: '. Midway Ch
aemon• /6B •.
L.
Nii
BMI
•? \J ?,.' "?" j - _-w?-r. /6/,?? J % ?J??t :£: - ?i ;`/1 ?s.. 167•
- \ I 1 \? - ?. /jam -
} 4 * ' r o r _ =yr 1 0 ton %°'Cem
(I 13"Ll
[ . !
.+V
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS E
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF February 5, 1996
Regulatory Branch
ACTION ID. 199500997, TIP B-2610, State Project No. 8.1462001, and Nationwide
Permit No. 23 (Approved Categorical Exclusions)
Mr. Frank Vick, Manager cc?
l
Planning and Environmental Branch
State of North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Reference your project planning report received August 8, 1995, regarding
the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NC DOT) proposal to replace
Bridge No. 67 and 39 over Shoe Heel Creek, on US 501, Robeson County, North
Carolina.
According to the planning report, NC DOT proposes to replace the existing
structures at the same location with new spans approximately 140 feet long
with a 40 foot width. Traffic will be maintained on temporary detours during
construction. Permanent impacts to wetlands associated with this project are
0.47 acres and temporary impacts are approximately 1.38 acres.
Your proposal is authorized pursuant to Nationwide Permit #23 provided it
is accomplished in strict accordance with the enclosed General Conditions and
the following special conditions:
1. The temporary detours will be removed in their entirety upon completion
of the authorized work and the site restored to original grade and elevation.
2. The restored area will be replanted with tree species endemic to the
area and will include cypress (Taxodium distichum), tupelo gum (NNyssa
acruatica), and red maple (Acer rubrum).
For the purposes of the Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program, Title 33,
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 330.6, published in the Federal
Register on November 22, 1991, lists nationwide permits. Authorization,
pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404
of the Clean Water Act, was provided for activities undertaken, assisted,
authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole or in part, by another
Federal agency or department where that agency or department has determined,
pursuant to the CEQ Regulation for the 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 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 nationwide permit does not relieve you of the responsibility to obtain
other required State or local approval.

Printed on ® Recyded Paper
I ' ,
-2-
This verification will be valid until the nationwide permit is modified,
reissued or revoked, which will occur prior to January 21, 1997. It is
incumbent upon you to remain informed of changes to the nationwide permits,
which will be announced by public notice when they occur. If you commence, or
are under contract to commence, this activity before the date the nationwide
permit is modified or revoked, you will have twelve months from the date of
the modification or revocation to complete the activity under the present
terms and conditions of this nationwide permit.
Questions or comments may be addressed to me in the Wilmington Regulatory
Field Office at [phone].
Sincerely,
Scott McLendon
Regulatory Project Manager
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mrs. Stephanie Briggs
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 2761-5201
V Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687