20000549 Ver 1_Complete File_20000414

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C.
27611-5201
GOVERNOR
April 7, 2000
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Mr. David Timpy
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
IT Le--
Subject: Robeson County, Replacement of Bridge No. 58 over Waft Swamp on
NC 71, Federal Project No. BRSTP-71(2), State Project No. 8.1462701, T.I.P.
No. B-3029. AID No. 199701747.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. Bridge No. 58 will be replaced on existing alignment with a new bridge
approximately 37 meters (120 feet) in length and 9.6 meters (32 feet) wide. During
construction traffic will be maintained on a temporary detour bridge located on the north
side of the bridge. Jurisdictional wetland impacts described in the attached Categorical
Exclusion document were based on the entire right-of-way width. We have recently
delineated the wetlands at the site and the revised impacts are 0.38 acres of permanent
impact consisting of 0.052 acres of fill in wetlands and 0.33 acres of mechanized
clearing. In addition, there will be 0.88 acres of temporary impacts from the temporary
detour. At the request of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC),
there will be a moratorium of instream work from April 1 and June 15 to avoid interfering
with fish reproduction.
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
APR
?? 4 2000
?a, M'EfI-ANDS71 ;.
A QUnL11Y )N
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 Nationwide Permit 23 in

accordance with the Federal Register of December 13, 1996, Part VII, Volume 61,
Number 241.
This project contains a bridge removal over Waters of the U.S. The superstructure
consists of reinforced concrete deck and railings on timber joists. The substructure
consists of timber caps on timber piles. The bridge rails and substructure will be
removed without dropping them into Waters of the U.S. There is potential for
components of the deck to be dropped into the Waters of the U.S. during construction.
The resulting temporary fill associated with the concrete deck is approximately 44 cubic
yards.
We anticipate a 401 General Certification will apply to this project, and are providing one
copy of the CE document to the North Carolina Department of Environment, and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon
at 733-1162.
Sincerely, -??-
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
6h?
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/attachment
Mr. David Franklin, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development Branch
Ms. Deborah Barbour, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Timothy V. Rountree, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. Terry Gibson, P.E., Division 6 Engineer
Mr. Tom Kendig, P & E Project Planning Engineer Unit Head

Robeson County
NC 71
Bridge No. 58 Over Big Raft Swamp
Federal-Aid Project BRSTP-71(2)
State Project No. 8.1462701
T.I.P. No. B-3029
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
6912
Z
DATE
0C/30M7
DATE
'4'0? C.
icholas L. Graf, P.E.
V Division Administrator, FHWA
Planning and Environmental Branch, NGDUT
Robeson County
NC 71
Bridge No. 58 Over Big Raft Swamp
Federal-Aid Project BRSTP-71(2)
State Project No. 8.1462701
T.I.P. No. B-3029
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
JUNE 1997
Document Prepared by Wang Engineering Company, Inc.
elt?,AA A 2
Pamela R. Williams
Project Engineer
J es Wang, Ph.D. , P. E.
resident
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
Z4;?? Z6?'C2:ar??
ay . Bissett, Jr., P.E., Unit Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
J h estbrook, r., Project veer
onsultant Engineering Unit
NC 71
Bridge No. 58 Over Big Raft Swamp
Robeson County
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-71(2)
State Project No. 8.1462701
T.I.P. No. B-3029
Bridge No. 58 is included in the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 1998-
2004 Transportation Improvement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial
impacts are anticipated as a result of this action. The project is classed as a Federal
"Categorical Exclusion."
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures, including NCDOT's Best Management Practices
for Protection of Surface Waters, and Stream Crossing Guidlines for Anadromous Fish
Passage will be implemented, as applicable, to avoid or minimize environmental
impacts.
2. Construction of the project will take place in such a manor as to avoid instream activities
between April 1 and June 15 to avoid interfering with fish reproduction.
3. The approach fill for the on-site detour will be removed to pre-construction contour and
revegetated with native vegetation. If undercutting is necessary for the on-site detour the
material will be stockpiled to be used to restore the site.
4. Borrow / waste areas will not be located in wetlands. Compensatory mitigation will be
required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 58 will be replaced on existing alignment as shown in Figure 2. It will be replaced
with a new bridge approximately 37 meters (120 ft) in length, with a clear roadway width of 9.6
meters (32 ft).
The grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing bridge grade at
this location.
The proposed approach roadway will have a 7.2 meter (24 ft) travelway with 2.4 meter (8 ft)
shoulders including 1.2 meter (4 ft) paved. When guardrail is warrented, the shoulder width will
be 3.4 meters (11 ft.) The approach work will extend approximately 143 meters (430 ft)
northeast and southwest of the bridge.
During construction, traffic will be maintained by a temporary detour bridge located on the north
side of the existing bridge.
The estimated cost, based on current prices, is $870,600 including $20,600 for right-of-way and
$850,000 for construction. The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the NCDOT 1998-
2004 Transportation Improvement Program, is $430,000 including $30,000 for right-of-way and
$400,000 for construction.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
NC 71 is classified as a rural major collector route in the Statewide Functional Classification
System. Land use is primarily wooded areas and swamp in the immediate vicinity of the
bridge. Big Raft Swamp dominates the area immediately adjacent to the roadway and extends
approximately 152 meters (500 ft) to the southwest and approximately 305 meters (1000 ft) to
the northeast of Bridge No. 58.
The approach to the existing bridge is tangent on both sides. The roadway at the bridge is
approximately 3.7 meters (12 ft) above the creek bed.
The speed limit is posted as 90 km/h (55 mph) at the project site.
The projected traffic volume for the bridge is 6,000 vehicles per day (vpd) for 1998 and 9,100
vpd for the design year 2018. The proposed bridge replacement project is based on design
traffic volumes of eight percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST), two percent dual-tired vehicles
(DT), ten percent design hourly volume and sixty percent directional.
The existing bridge was built in 1931 (Figure
concrete deck with an asphalt wearing surface
piles with cross bracing at interior bents.
3). The superstructure consists of reinforced
The substructure consists of timber caps and
The overall length of the bridge is 31.7 meters (104 ft). The clear roadway width is 8.6 meters
(28.3 ft). The posted weight limit is 29,030 kilograms (32 tons) for single vehicles and truck-
tractor semi-trailers.
Bridge No. 58 has a sufficiency rating of 41.5, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
Five accidents were reported on NC 71 near Bridge No. 58 during the period from July 1, 1993
to June 30, 1996. Three accidents involved vehicles running off the road under normal road
conditions. Two accidents involved vehicles colliding with stationary objects in the travelway.
Two of the five accidents were double-vehicle accidents.
Aerial phone lines and cable television lines exist along the south side of NC 71. Utility impacts
are anticipated to be low.
A total of 8 school buses cross this bridge twice daily.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
The bridge alternatives studied for replacing Bridge No. 58 included a new bridge approximately
37 meters (120 ft) in length that would accommodate a 7.2 meter (24 ft) travelway with 1.2
meter (4 ft) shoulders on each side. The approach roadway would consist of a 7.2 meter (24 ft)
travelway with 2.4 meter (8 ft) shoulders, including 1.2 meters (4 ft) paved.
Alternate A (Recommended): Replace Bridge No. 58 on existing alignment with a temporary
on-site detour bridge on the north side. The roadway grade of the new structure will be
approximately the same as the grade on the existing bridge. The approach work will extend
approximately 143 meters (470 ft) northeast and southwest of the proposed bridge. The detour
bridge will be approximately 29 meters (95 ft) in length.
Alternate B: Replace Bridge No. 58 on new alignment north of the existing bridge. Traffic will
be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. The approach work will extend
approximately 182 meters (600 ft) southwest and northeast of the proposed bridge.
Alternate C: Replace Bridge No. 58 with a new bridge at the existing location. Traffic will be
detoured off-site along existing roads during construction. The roadway grade of the new
structure will be approximately the same as the grade on the existing bridge. The approach
work will extend approximately 96 meters (325 ft) northeast and southwest of the proposed
bridge.
Other Alternates:
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
desirable due to the traffic service provided by NC 71.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates the rehabilitation
of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternates studied, based on current prices, are as follows:
(Recommended)
Alternate A
Structure Removal (existing) $ 20,400
Structure (proposed) 228,000
Temp. Detour Structure and Approaches 225,000
Roadway Approaches 84,600
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 181,000
Engineering and Contingencies 111,000
Alternate B
$ 20,400
228,000
N/A
467,600
241,000
143,000
27,000
Alternate C
$ 20,400
228,000
N/A
84,600
102,000
65,000
18,950
ROW/Const. Easements/Utilities 20,600
TOTAL $ 870,600
VI.
$1,127,000
$ 518,950
Bridge No. 58 will be replaced on the existing alignment at approximately the same elevation
with a length of 37 meters (120 ft). Traffic will be maintained by an on-site detour upstream of
the bridge (Alternate A) due to the following:
The off-site detour route (See Fig. 1) is approximately 6.2 miles in length with a roaduser
cost of approximately $2,700,000 for a nine month road closure period. The proposed
route crosses Bridges No. 36 and 37 which have a weight limit of 22 tons and 20 tons.
Bridge No. 58 has a weight limit of 32 tons. Therefore, the studied detour is not a
suitable alternative.
• The ADT of 6000 vpd and the truck traffic generated by the Campbell Soup Company.
• Utilities are located downstream of the existing bridge. An on-site detour downstream will
require utilities to be relocated and create additional impacts to the wetlands.
• The on-site detour alternative has less permanent impact to the wetlands and the
cypress gum swamp, than the new alignment altemative.
A 9.6 meter (32 ft) clear roadway width is recommended on the replacement structure in
accordance with the current NCDOT Bridge Policy. This will provide a 7.2 meter (24 ft)
travelway with 1.2 meter (4 ft) shoulders across the structure.
A 7.2 meter (24 ft) travelway with 2.4 meter (8 ft) shoulders, including 1.2 meters (4 ft) paved,
will be provided on the proposed approaches. Where guardrail is warrented a 3.4 meter (11 ft.)
shoulder will be used.
The Division Engineer concurs in the recommendation that the structure be replaced on the
existing alignment utilizing an on-site detour.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis utilizing the 25 year design storm, the new structure is
recommended to have a length of approximately 37 meters (120 ft). The elevation of the new
structure will be approximately the same as the existing bridge. The replacement structure will
maintain a minimum 0.3% grade to facilitate deck drainage. The length and height may be
increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by further
hydrologic studies.
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
The proposed project study area lies within the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province in rural
Robeson County, approximately 5.5 kilometers (3.5 miles) northeast of Red Springs, North
Carolina (Figure 1).
Methodology
Informational sources used to prepare this report include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Red
Springs quadrangle map (1974); Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Soil Survey of Robeson
County (1978); United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory
Map (Red Springs 1995); USFWS list of protected species and federal species of concern
(1997); North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare species and
unique habitats (1996); NCDOT aerial photography of the project area (1:1200); North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM) water resource data; and North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) proposed critical habitat information. Research
using these resources was conducted prior to the field investigation.
A general field survey was conducted along the proposed project corridor on October 21, 1996.
Plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified using a variety of observation
techniques, including active searching, visual observations with binoculars, and identifying
characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, tracks, scat, and burrows).
Quantitative impact calculations were based on.the worst case scenario using the full 30.4
meter (100.0 foot) wide right-of-way limits, the width of the stream for aquatic impacts, and the
length of the project approaches. The actual construction impacts will be less, but without
specific replacement structure design information (pier intrusions, etc.) the worst case was
assumed for the impact calculations.
Definitions for area descriptions used in this report are as follows: "project study area", "project
area", and "project corridor" denote the speck area being directly impacted by each
alternative. "Project vicinity" denotes the area within a 1.6 kilometer (1.0 mile) radius of the
project area.
Topography and Soils
The topography of the project vicinity is characterized as rolling hills to flat. Project area
elevation is approximately 53 meters (175 feet). According to the General Soil Map for Robeson
County (SCS, 1978), the area within the riverbed and swamp consists of Johnston-Bibb soil
association which is described as very poorly drained and poorly drained nearly level soils that
have a loamy and sandy underlying material, on floodplains. Also within the project vicinity,
adjacent to the swamp is mapped as Norfolk-Wagrum-McColl association which is described as
well-drained, nearly level to sloping soils that have a loamy subsoil and poorly drained, nearly
level soils that have a clayey and loamy subsoil on uplands.
The specific map units consist of Johnston soils which are described as nearly level, very poorly
drained soils that are loamy or sandy throughout, found on floodplains. Johnston soils are listed
on the local hydric soils list for Robeson County. These soil types were confirmed in the field by
taking soil borings with a hand auger.
WATER RESOURCES
This section describes each water resource and its relationship to major water systems. The
proposed project lies within the Lumber River drainage basin.
Water Resource Characteristics
Big Raft Swamp flows under Bridge No.58 with a width of approximately 16 meters (51 feet).
Big Raft Swamp has a classification of C Sw from the North Carolina Department of
Environment Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR). Class C indicates freshwaters
protected for secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life including propagation and survival, and
wildlife. The class cation of Sw indicates Swamp waters which are waters which have low
velocities and other natural characteristics which are different from adjacent streams. The
classification index number for this portion of Big Raft Swamp is 14-10-(1).
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps for
Robeson County (1989) indicates the project area lies in Zone A, where no base flood
elevations have been determined.
The NCDEM has data from Big Raft Swamp at NC 211, which is located approximately 16.9
kilometers (10.5 miles) downstream from the project area; and from SR 1527, which is located
approximately 22.5 kilometers (14 miles) downstream from the project area. Benthic
macroinvertebrates, or benthos, are organisms that live in and on the bottom substrates of
rivers and streams. The use of benthos data has proven to be a reliable tool as benthic
macroin vertebrates are sensitive to subtle changes in water quality. Criteria have been
developed to assign bioclassifications ranging from "Poor" to "Excellent" to each benthic sample
based on the number of taxa present in the intolerant groups Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and
Trichoptera (EPT). Different criteria have been developed for different ecoregions (mountains,
piedmont, coastal) within North Carolina. Data from the NC 211 sampling station taken in
September 1991 as well as in December 1988 indicated a bioclassification of "good/fair". Data
from the SR 1527 sampling station from December 1988 indicated a bioclassification of "good".
The NCDEM also uses the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) as another method to
determine general water quality. The method was developed for assessing a stream's
biological integrity by examining the structure and health of its fish community. The scores
derived from the index are a measure of the ecological health of the waterbody and may not
necessarily directly correlate to water quality. There is no NCIBI data available for Big Raft
Swamp.
The Public Water Supply Watershed Map for Robeson County indicates that the project area is
not within a Critical Area. There are no water resources classed as High Quality Waters
(HQW), water supplies (WS-1 or WS-11), or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) within 1.6
kilometers (1.0 miles) of the project area.
A review of any point source dischargers that are located within the project vicinity was also
conducted. Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through
the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger is
required to register for a permit. There are no point source dischargers within the project
vicinity.
Non-point source refers to runoff that enters surface waters through stormwater flow or no
defined point of discharge. In the project area, stormwater runoff from NC 71 appears to be the
main source of water quality degradation as no residential, commercial, or agricultural areas are
within the project area.
Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Impacts to the water resources will result due to the placement of support structures in the river
channel. in the short term, removal of trees which provide shade in the adjacent cypress-gum
swamp will likely result in an increase in water temperatures, and construction of the bridge and
approach work will increase sediment loads. Although flow is very slow in these areas,
additional sediment loading can reduce flow further and result in a decrease in oxygen levels.
The NCDOT, in cooperation with NCDEM, has developed a sedimentation control program for
highway projects which adopts formal Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface
Waters. The following are methods to reduce sedimentation and water quality impacts:
strict adherence to NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface
Waters during the life of the project.
reduction and elimination of direct and non-point discharge into the water bodies and
minimization of activities conducted in streams
placement of temporary ground cover or re-seeding of disturbed sites to reduce runoff
and decrease sediment loadings.
reduction of clearing and grubbing along streams.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Living systems described in the following sections include communities of associated plants and
animal. These descriptions refer to the dominant flora and fauna in each community and the
relationship of these biotic components. Classification of plant communities is based on a
system used by the NCNHP (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). Scientific nomenclature and
common names (when applicable) are used for the plant and animal species described.
Subsequent references to the same species include the common name only. Vascular plant
names follow nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968). Terrestrial and aquatic wildlife were
determined through field observations, evaluation of habitat, and review of field guides and
other documentation (Conant, 1958; Farrand, 1993; Robbins et al., 1966; and Whitaker, 1980).
Terrestrial Communities
The predominant terrestrial communities found in the project study area are man-dominated
and cypress-gum swamp. Dominant faunal components associated with these terrestrial areas
will be discussed in each community description. Many species are adapted to the entire range
of habitats found along the project alignment, but may not be mentioned separately in each
community description.
Man-Dominated Community
This highly disturbed community within the project area includes the road shoulders and the
power line easement to the south of the bridge (Figure 2). Many plant species are adapted to
these disturbed and regularly maintained areas. Regularly mowed and maintained areas along
the road shoulders are dominated by fescue (Festuca spp.), ryegrass (Lolium spp.), white
clover (Trifolium repens), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), wild onion (Allium cemuum). Within
the power line easement, which is less regularly maintained, are species such as dog fennel
(Eupatorium capillffolium), blackberry (Rebus spp.), aster (Aster spp.), greenbrier (Smilax
rotundifolia), muscadine grape (Vi6s rotundifolia), and common morning glory Qpomea
purpurea). In the northeast quadrant adjacent to the road shoulders is an area dominated by a
dense stand of Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense).
The animal species present in these disturbed habitats are opportunistic and capable of
surviving on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation (flowers, leaves, fruits, and seeds)
to both living and dead faunal components. Although only an American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos) was observed during the site visit, species such as raccoon (Procyon lotor),
Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), several species of mice (Peromyscus spp.), Eastern
garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis), Eastern blue bird (Sialia sialis), American goldfinch
(Cardeulis tristis), Northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), and American robin (Turdus
migratorius) are often attracted to these disturbed habitats. In addition, species such as the
gray catbird (Dumetella carolinensis), brown thrasher (Toxostoma nrfum), and white eyed vireo
(Vireo griseus) may utilize the dense stand of Chinese privet in the northeast quadrant.
Cypress-Gum Swamp
This forested community occurs in all quadrants of the bridge as well as along the swamp banks
throughout the project area. The dominant canopy trees include bald cypress (Taxodium
distichum), black gum (Nyssa sylvadca var. biflora), red maple (Ater ?ubrum), and willow oak
(Quercus phellos). The understory consists of red maple, black titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), and
loblolly bay (Gordonia iasianthus). The shrub layer includes blackberry, wax myrtle (Myrica
cerifera), Chinese privet and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica). The herbaceous layer
includes giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), common greenbrier, muscadine grape and
plumegrass (Erianthus spp.), rush (Juncus spp.), switchgrass (Panicum spp.), bushy seedbox
(Ludwigia altemifolia), and smartweed (Polygonum spp.). The soil within the swamp forest
community is a black (10 YR 3/1) coarse silty sand which is saturated to the surface. Other
hydrologic indicators throughout the site includes standing water, buttressing of tree trunks, and
water marks and drift lines on trees.
On the day of the site visit, a tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), several rusty blackbirds (Euphagus
carolinus), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes
carolinus), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), and American crows were observed in the field. Signs
of raccoon were also observed. Other animals which may be present in this habitat include the
great blue heron (Ardea herodias), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) Carolina wren
(Thryothorus ludovicianus), parula warbler (Parula americana), Acadian flycatcher (Empidonax
virescens), brown water snake (Natrix taxispilota), Southern leopard frog (Rana utricularia),
muskrat (Odatra zibethica), and marsh rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris).
Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the project area exists within Big Raft Swamp. Within the area under
Bridge NO. 58, the swamp is approximately 16 meters (51 feet) wide. The swamp widens on
either side of the bridge and dominates the areas immediately adjacent to the road shoulders.
On the day of the field investigation the water was slow moving and colored by tannins. The
bottom was not visible.
Vegetation within the swamp includes bald cypress, black gum, and red maple. Animals which
may reside within the swamp and along the waters edge are listed in the man-dominated
section; other species include the belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon), red-bellied water
snake (Natrix erythrogaster), Eastern cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus piscivorus),
snapping turtle (Chelydra serpen6na) and bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana). On the day of the site
visit, the water within the project area was very slow moving and contained no riffle areas, thus
it was unlikely to find a diverse macroinvertebrate community. Due to the depth and siltation in
this river, the macroinvertebrate community would be restricted to the shallow areas along the
river banks. Although these shallow areas were sampled by dip netting, no macroinvertebrates
were observed.
According to Keith Ashley, District 4 Biologist for the North 'Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC), the following fish species are found within Big Raft Swamp: largemouth
bass (Micropterus salmoides), sunfish (Lepomis spp.), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus),
warmouth (Lepomis gulosus), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), chain pickerel (Esox niger),
and redfin pickerel (Esox americanus). North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission request
that there be no in-stream work between April 1 and June 15 to avoid interfering with fish
reproduction.
8
Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Biotic community impacts resulting from project construction are addressed separately as
terrestrial impacts and aquatic impacts. However, impacts to terrestrial communities, particularly
in wetland areas and in locations exhibiting gentle slopes, can result in the aquatic community
receiving heavy sediment loads as a consequence of erosion. It is important to understand that
construction impacts may not be restricted to the communities in which the construction activity
occurs. Efforts should be made to ensure that no sediment leaves the construction site.
Table 1 details the anticipated impacts to terrestrial and aquatic communities by habitat type.
TABLE 1
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO
TERRESTRIAL and AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
HECTARES (ACRES).
Bridge NO. 58 Man- Cypress- Gum Aquatic Combined Total
Replacement Dominated Swamp Community
Impacts Community
Alternate A 0.36 (0.90) 0.30 (0.75) 0.05 (0.12) 0.71 (1.77)
Temporary 0.33 (0.82) 0.33 (0.82) 0.06 (0.15) 0.72(l.79)
Alternate B 0.48(l.19) 0.49(l.22) 0.06 (0.15) 1.03 (2.56)
Alternate C 0.27 (0.67) 0.23 (0.58) 0.05 (0.12) 0.55(l.37)
Terrestrial Communities
The cypress-gum swamp and the man-dominated communities serve as nesting, foraging and
shelter habitat for fauna. Removal of plants and other construction related activities will result in
the displacement and mortality of faunal species in residence. Individual mortalities are likely to
occur to terrestrial animals from construction machinery used during clearing activities.
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. Often, project construction does not require the entire right-of-way,
therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less. Alternate A (Recommended) will result in
an overall impact of 1.43 hectares (3.56 acres) including a permanent combined total of 0.71
hectare (1.77 acre), and temporary impact of 0.72 hectare (1.79 acre).
Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the study area exists within Big Raft Swamp. Altemate C will result in
the least amount of disturbance of stream bottom (0.05 hectare/0.12 acre). Alternate A (which
includes a temporary detour) will result in up to 0.11 hectare (0.27 acre) of stream bottom.
9
(This represents worst case conditions; actual disturbance area will be less). In addition,
impacts to the adjacent cypress-gum swamp can have a direct impact on aquatic communities.
Activities such as the removal of trees in the swamp, as well as the construction of the bridge
and approach work will likely result in an increase in sediment loads and water temperatures
and a decrease in dissolved oxygen in the short term.
Potential adverse effects to surface waters will be minimized through the implementation of
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters. Since Big Raft
Swamp potentially contains anadromous fish spawning habitat, the NCDOT's "Stream Crossing
Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage" will be adhered to for this project. The purpose of
these guidelines is to provide guidance to NCDOT to ensure that replacement of existing and
new highway stream crossing structures will not impede the movement of anadromous fish.
SPECIAL TOPICS
Jurisdictional Issues
Waters of the United States:
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States" as
defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Waters of the United States are regulated by the United States Army
Corps of Engineers (USACOE).
Wetlands will be impacted by the subject project as Big Raft Swamp is surrounded by cypress-
gum swamp within the bridge replacement corridor. Investigation into wetland occurrence in the
project impact area was conducted using methods of the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual.
Permanent wetland impacts due to the project will be up to 0.30 hectare (0.75 acres).
Temporary wetland impacts due to the project will be up to 0.33 hectare (0.82 acres).
Project construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on jurisdictional surface waters.
Anticipated surface water impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the USACOE. Up to 0.11 hectare
(0.27 acre) (including temporary impacts) of jurisdictional surface water impacts may occur due
to the proposed replacement of Bridge NO. 58.
Permits
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.O.E. 1344), a
permit will be required from the USACOE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into
"Waters of the United States".
Since the subject project is classed as a Categorical Exclusion, it is likely that this project will
be subject to the Nationwide Permit Provisions of 33 CFR 33-.5 (A) 23. This permit authorizes
any activities, work and discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or
financed, in whole or in part, by another federal agency and that the activity is "categorically
excluded" from environmental documentation because it is included within a category of actions
10
which neither individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment.
However, final permit decisions are left to the discretionary authority of the USACOE.
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR), will also be required. This certificate
is issued for any activity which may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal permit is
required.
Mitigation
Mitigation for impacts to wetlands exceeding one acre will be required by both the USACOE and
the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). Wetlands will be delineated prior to
submittal for permit application. Mitigation for impacts to surface waters may be required by the
USACOE and NCDWQ. A final determination regarding mitigation to waters of the U.S. rest with
USACOE and NCDWQ.
All borrow and solid waste sites will be the responsibility of the Contractor. Solid waste will be
disposed of in strict adherence to the NC Division of Highways "Standard Specifications for
Roads and Structures". The Contractor will observe and comply with all laws, ordinances,
regulations, orders, and decrees regarding the disposal of solid waste. Solid waste will not be
placed into any existing land disposal sites that is in violation of state or local rules and
regulations. Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas that are outside the right-of-way and
provided by the Contractor. The Contractor will be responsible for obtaining borrow sites,
delineating wetlands in borrow sites and obtaining written concurrence on delineated wetlands
in borrow sites from the Corps of Engineers. Borrow material will not be stockpiled or disposed
of adjacent to or in areas where they may runoff with stormwater into streams and
impoundments. Where it is absolutely necessary to store materials adjacent to streams, they
will be stored above the mean high-water mark in such a manner that they would not runoff with
stormwater. Disposal of waste and debris will not be allowed in areas under the Corps of
Engineers regulating jurisdiction. In the event that COE jurisdictional areas cannot be avoided,
the Department will be responsible for mitigation.
The Contractor will maintain the earth surface of all waste areas, both during the construction
phase and until the completion of all seeding and mulching, or other erosion control measures
specified, in a manner that will effectively control erosion and siltation into areas under the
Corps of Engineers regulatory jurisdiction, streams and impoundments.
Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals are in the process of decline due either to natural
forces or their inability to coexist with humans. Rare and protected species listed for Robeson
County, and any likely impacts to these species as a result of the proposed project construction,
are discussed in the following sections.
11
Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7
and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists three federally protected species for
Robeson County as of the May 2, 1997 listing. These species are listed in Table 2.
TABLE 2
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR ROBESON COUNTY
Scientific Name Status
Common Name
Alligator mississippiensis T (S/A)
American alligator)
Picoides borealis E
Red-cockaded woodpecker)
Rhus michauxii E
Michaux's sumac
NOTES:
E Denotes Endangered (a species that is In danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range)
T (S/A) Denotes Threatened based on similarity of appearance.
The American alligator is a large (1.8 to 3.7 meters / 6 to 12 feet long) rough-backed reptile
with a broad, rounded snout. Its fourth tooth on the lower jaw fits into a notch in the lower jaw.
This characteristic distinguishes the American alligator from the American crocodile which has
its fourth tooth exposed when the jaw is closed. American alligators are sexually mature at
about 6 or 7 years of age. Nesting occurs in late spring or early summer when females produce
approximately 35 to 40 eggs. American alligators inhabit fresh to slightly brackish river systems,
canals, lakes, ponds, swamps, bayous, and coastal marshes.
The American alligator is not federally protected and is not afforded legal protection under
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
The Red-cockaded woodpecker is a small (18-20 cm long) bird with a black and white
horizontal stripes on its back, a black cap and a large white cheek patch. The male has a small
red spot or "cockade" behind the eye.
The preferred nesting habitat of the Red-cockaded woodpecker is open stands of pines with a
minimum age of 60 to 120 years. Longleaf pines (Pious palustris) are preferred for nesting;
however, other mature pines such as loblolly (Pinus taeda) may be utilized. Typical nesting
areas, or territories, are pine stands of approximately 81 hectares (200 acres), however, nesting
has been reported in stands as small as 24 hectares (60 acres). Preferred foraging habitat is
pine and pine-hardwood stands of 80 to 125 acres with a minimum age of 30 years and a
12
minimum diameter of 25 centimeters (10 inches). The Red-cockaded woodpecker utilizes
these areas to forage for insects such as ants, beetles, wood-boring insects, caterpillars, as well
as seasonal wild fruit.
This habitat type does not exist in the project area; there are no stands of old growth
pines within or adjacent to the study area. A search of the NCNHP database showed no
recorded occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. it can be concluded that
the construction of proposed project will not impact the Red-cockaded woodpecker.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Michaux's sumac is a densely hairy shrub with erect stems which are 0.3 to 0.9 meters (1 to 3
feet) in height. The shrub's compound leaves are narrowly winged at their base, dull on their
tops, and veiny and slightly hairy on their bottoms. Each leaflet is finely toothed on its edges.
The flowers are greenish-yellow to white and are 4-5 parted. The plant flowers from April to
June.
Michaux's sumac is found in sandy or rocky open woods in association with basic soils. This
plant survives best in areas where some form of disturbance has provided an open area.
The project area includes cypress-gum swamp and regularly maintained road shoulders
which are not suitable habitat for this species. The road shoulder / wooded area edge is
too wet to provide suitable habitat A search of the NCNHP database showed no
recorded occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. it can be concluded that
construction of the proposed project will not impact Michaux's sumac.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act
and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed
or listed as Threatened of Endangered. Species designated as FSC are defined as taxa which
may or may not be listed in the future. These species were formerly Candidate 2 (C2) species
or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support
listing. Some of these species are listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern by
the NCNHP list of Rare Plant and Animal Species and are afforded state protection under the
State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of
1979; however, the level of protection given to state listed species does not apply to NCDOT
activities. Table 3 includes listed FSC species for Robeson County and their state
class cations.
13
TABLE 3
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN
ROBESON COUNTY
Scientific Name North Carolina Habitat Present
(Common Name) Status
Aimophila aesdvalis SC No
Bachman's sparrow)
Corynorhinus rafinesquii SC No
Rafines ue's big-eared bat
Heterodon simus SR No
Southern ho nose snake
Rana capito capito SC No
Carolina gopher fro
Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana* E No
(Georgia indigo-bush)
Astragalus michauxii* C No
Sandhills milkvetch
Dionaea muscipula C-SC No
Venus "rap)
Echinodorus parvulus C Yes
Dwarf burhead
Lindera subcoriacea E No
Bo s icebush
Macbridea caroliniana C Yes
Carolina bo mint
Rhexia aristosa T No
(awned meadowbeauty)
NOTES:
Indicates no specimens have been found in at least 20 years.
E Denotes Endangered (species which are afforded protection by state laws).
T Denotes Threatened (species which are afforded protection by state laws).
SC Denotes Special Concern (species which are afforded protection by state laws).
SR Denotes Significantly Rare (species for which population monitoring and conservation action is
recommended).
C Denotes Candidate (species for which population monitoring and conservation action is recommended).
A review of the NCNHP database revealed no occurrences of any FSC or state protected
species within the project vicinity.
State Protected Species
Organisms which are listed by NCNHP as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern
(SC) are afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act, and the North
Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. The North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program database was reviewed; state protected species listed for Robeson County are
presented in Table 4.
14
TABLE 4
STATE PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR ROBESON COUNTY
Scientific Name Status Habitat
Common Name Present
Ambystoma dgrinum T No
(Tiger salamander
Condylura cristata pop. 1 Sc Yes
Star-nosed mole - Eastern NC pop.)
Cyprinella zanema (pop. 2) Sc Yes
Santee chub - Coastal lain pop.)
Egretta cae?ulea Sc Yes
Little blue heron
Etheostoma mariae Sc No
Pinewoods darter
Lanius ludovicianus ludovicianus Sc No
(Loggerhead shrike
Noturus sp. 2 SC No
Broadtail madtom
Rana hecksched Sc Yes
(River frog)
Chrysoma pauciflosculosa E No
Wood goldenrod)
Muhlenbergia torreyana E No
Pinebarren smoke rass
Platanthera integra T No
Yellow fringeless orchid
Platanthera nivea T No
(Snowy orchid) a
NOTES:
E Denotes Endangered (species which are afforded protection by state laws).
T Denotes Threatened (species which are afforded protection by state laws).
SC Denotes Special Concern (species which are afforded protection by state laws).
A review of the NCNHP database revealed no occurrences of any FSC or state protected
species within the project vicinity.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Habitat is present in the project area for the American alligator; however, this species is listed as
threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and are not biologically
endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation. Habitat also exists on
the site for two Federal Species of Concern and for four additional state listed species. No
individuals were observed at the time of the site visit. No impacts to federally protected species
will result from any of the proposed project alternatives.
15
VIII. CULTURAL EFFECTS
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historical Preservation
Act of 1966, as amended and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires that for federally funded, licensed, or permitted projects having an effect on properties
listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be given the opportunity to comment.
In a Concurrence Form, dated January 16, 1997 the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
concurred that there are no historic architectural resources either listed in or eligible for listing in
the National Register of Historic Places located in the project's area of potential effect. A copy
of the SHPO letter is included in the Appendix.
The SHPO, in a memorandum dated December 4, 1996, stated that there are no known
archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Therefore, the SHPO recommended that
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project. A copy of the
SHPO memorandum is included in the Appendix.
IX. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment, provided that current NCDOT standards and specifications are used.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No significant
change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. No relocatees are expected with
implementation of the proposed alternatives.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of
national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
No geodetic survey markers will be impacted.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land acquisition and
construction projects. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service (SCS). Since the bridge will be replaced at the existing location, the
Farmland Protection Policy Act does not apply.
16
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included the regional
emission analysis (if applicable) and a project level CO analysis is not required. The project is
located in Robeson County, which has been determined to be in compliance with the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Part 51 is not applicable because the proposed project
is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on
the air quality of this attainment area.
This project will not increase or decrease the traffic volumes in the area. There are no
receptors located in the immediate project area. The projects impact on noise and air quality
will not be significant.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If vegetation is disposed
of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations
of the North Carolina SIP air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation
completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air
quality (1990 CAAA and NEPA) and no additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the
North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed
no underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Robeson County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. The approximate 100
year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 4. The amount of floodplain area to be
affected is not considered to be significant.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental
effects will result from implementation of the project. The project is a Federal "Categorical
Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of significant environmental consequences.
17
REFERENCES
Burt, W.H. and R.P. Grossenheider. 1952. A Field Guide to Mammals. Houghton Mifflin
Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts.
Conant, R. 1958. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North
America. Houghton Mifflin Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
United States Department of the Interior, Washington DC.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. United States Army Corps of Engineers. Wetlands
Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Farrand, J., Jr. 1993. Audubon Society Guide to Animal Tracks of North America.
Chanticleer Press, New York, New York.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Feb. 1996. List of Rare Species of North Carolina.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Newcomb, L. 1977. Newcomb's Wildflower Guide. Little, Brown and Company, Boston,
Massachusetts.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 1996.
Classifications and Water Quality Standards Assigned to The Waters of the Lumber River
Basin. North Carolina Division of Environmental Management, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Robbins, C.S., B. Bruun and H.S. Zim. 1966. A Guide to Field Identification of Birds of North
America. Western Publishing, Racine, Wisconsin.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1978. Soil Survey of
Robeson County, North Carolina.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992 (updated 1996). Endangered and Threatened
Species of the Southeastern United States (The Red Book). United States Fish and Wildlife
Service Southeastern Region, Atlanta, Georgia.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. May 2, 1997. List of Endangered and Threatened
Species of North Carolina. United States Fish and Wildlife Service Southeastern Region,
Atlanta, Georgia.
18
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. National Wetlands Inventory Map. Red Springs
Quadrangle.
United States Geological Survey. 1974. Topographic map - Red Springs quadrangle.
Wherry, E.T. 1995. The Fern Guide to Northeastern and Midland United States and adjacent
Canada. Dover Publications, New York.
Whitaker, J.O., Jr. 1980. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mammals.
Alfred Knopf Publishing, New York, New York.
19
?IcNEI
,449 • LAKE '
,449
i
1436 ,001 /
1494
1446
1474 \
,475~ ?
1447
,436
< \.
1
•t 443 _ ?
1444 '
1

RIDGE N0.58
ay
L
.0? A '
11
Red SPI.
/? 5, Ima
I A, R
i
83 RSemon
Pmri
Rowlsn4
n
I . Re.
Mnnon
?nnerl ® - (200
a 7Ssml auls\
E • O N
I®
V+ a %,
-, . lumtierton
eNam,
\Allent
uld
72 1
tl isumont X10 ,
r«torrdle. t?``??lo ?
orru
Rbsrdman
B,rnesrrlk
Msnetta c
ull
`\' 'a"
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning and Environmental Branch
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 58
OVER BIG RAFT SWAMP
ON NC 71
ROBESON COUNTY
TIP NO. B-3029
0 -l .km 2 kilometer
JIM"
SCALE 1:60 000 FIG. I
0 0 0 0 Studied Detour Route
Robeson County
Bridge NO. 58
B-3029
LOOKING NORTHEAST

DOWNSTREAM SIDE
FIGURE 3
E?
ROBESON
COUNTY
B-3029
. .?
:;::.:ZONE A
IFUM
SHANNON
BRIDGE N0. 58 `:
ZONE X s7os`'
y?
I
ZONE X
i
hX
0
G`'?
ONE A
7 ...
X

100 YEAR
FLOODPLAIN
SCALE 1:24000
0 1000 2000
meters

ZONE A- -?.::;
s; loos
??
: :
\. •
:•:•:
nos
.

ZONE X
:
? r ... :.
1

FIGURE 4
s t
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
December 4, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick. P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook d ('`t--
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Bridge Group 14, Replace Bridge 58 on
NC 71 over Big Raft Swamp, Robeson
County, B-3029, State Project
8.1462701, ER 97-7783
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your letter of November 5, 1996, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the following
structures of historical or architectural importance within the general area of the
project:
Bridge #58. This bridge was built in 1931.
We recommend that Bridge #58 be evaluated for National Register of Historic
Places eligibility. We look forward to meeting with an architectural historian from
the North Carolina Department of Transportation to review the aerial and
photographs of the project area so we can make our survey recommendation.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend that
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 g
County ?° gE r4
Federal Aid n IKISKP - 7 2 TIP u F 21
CONCURRENCE FOPUM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description V-EPi-ACHE 6R?OwE rye ;Ov ow W4, -1! rvCV_, 6t(r f'AFr
On ' 7 representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
J Fcdcral Highway Administration (FHwA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph re•:ic%v session/consultadon
Othcr
All parties present agreed
there arc no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potc:ttial c ccts.
? there arc no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to mcct Criterion
Ccrtsidcration G within the project's area of potential effects.
there are properties over fifty years old (list artached) %%ithin the proicct's area of potential effects,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as 1341KC WV SfP arc considered not eligible
for National Register and no further evaluation of them is ncccssarti•.
? there are no National Re,istcr-listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
Siencd:
I/it,/I
NCDOT

X
FHwt(, ?r the Division Acdministrator, or other Federal Agency Date
In
Representative, SHPO Date
State Historic Preservation Officer ate
Ira survey report is prepared, a final copy of this funn and the attached list mill tx: included.
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. Joe Westbrook
NCDOT Planning and Environmental Branch
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coor
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: January 6, 1997
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 58 on NC 71 over Big Raft Swamp, Robeson
County, North Carolina, TIP No. B-3029.
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
information provided regarding potential impacts to wildlife and fisheries resources. Our
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
We recommend replacement of the existing structure with a bridge, on-site with an off-
site detour. If widening bridge approaches is necessary, this should be done accomplished to the
downstream side, minimizing wetland impacts. We also request that there be no in-stream work
between April 1 and June 15 to avoid interfering with fish reproduction.
In addition to any specific comments above, the NCWRC requests NCDOT routinely
minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements.
The NCDOT should install and maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life of
the project and prevent wet concrete from contacting water in or entering into these streams.
Replacement of bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box
culverts, is recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along
streambanks, reducing habitat fragmentation and vehicle related mortality at highway crossings.
Any channel relocations should be done using state-of-the-art stream relocation techniques and
should be coordinated with the NCWRC.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on this project.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources / • •
Division of Water Quality
Ja mesB. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
January 16, 1997
MEMORANDUM
T, : Mr. Joe Westbrook, NCDOT, Planning & Environmental A _
From: Cyndi Bell, NC Division of Water Quality L E3 -
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for Bridge Replacement Projects
Reference your correspondence dated November 5, 1996, in which you requested comments concerning
the scope of work to be performed by Wang Engineering Company, Inc. The Division of Water Quality
requests that NCDOT and its consultant consider the following generic environmental commitments for
design and construction of bridge replacements:
A. DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design Standards
in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction for this
project in the area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW (Outstanding
Resource Water), HQW (High Quality Water), B (Body Contact), SA (Shellfish Water) or Tr
(Trout Water) classifications to protect existing uses.
B. DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on existing location with road closure. If an on-site
detour or bridge/approach road realignment is necessary, the approach fills should be removed to
pre-construction contour and revegetated with native vegetation. Tree species should be planted
at 320 stems per acre.
C. DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge crossing a stream
classified as WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installed should be determined by
the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than directly flowing into
the stream.
D. To the maximum extent practicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek.
E. Wetland impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures). If this is not possible, alternatives that minimize wetland impacts should
be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by DWQ if impacts exceed one
acre. Smaller impacts may soon require mitigation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
F. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation
will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
The attached table has been prepared by DWQ for your assistance in studying the systems involved in
these bridge replacements. This information includes the DWQ Index Number, DWQ Stream
Classification, river basin, and preliminary comments for each crossing.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal opportunity AHinnalive Action Empbyer WY. recycbNl0% post consumer paper
Mr. Joe Westbrook Memo
January 16, 1997
Page 2
Thank you for your request for DWQ input. DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires satisfaction of water quality concerns, to ensure that water quality standards are met
and designated uses are not lost or degraded. Questions regarding the 401 Certification or other water
quality issues should be directed to Cyndi Bell at [phone] in DWQ's Water Quality Environmental
Sciences Branch.
cc: Michelle Suverkrubbe
Melba McGee
B2806.DOC

m 15 m 8 m 8
c
E E E m E E m 5 E m m 92 E m 'b a c c Z m
m m m r m 8 ; o ? o ro ? o
m m G m m Tr m L m ¢ y G Ccc m m Z m a m
«
m mE ?FF LL m m 0
CL CL ¢ L J J J JEE `a
H H
G
° 3 3 3 3 3
A 3
(bn c z z Cl) ;U)i cn i z z z z
3 A U U U U U V N U N co
N
? U
b v' N N'7 •- ^ O Q N O ?O t0
N M N N d d N m
u e 2 v d, d+
Q f7 N m
o ° a
L ? X
r s € g x
40
o ? O
v r8 ¢ z 0
S
CD
N
Z m
N _ ¢ ¢ N U)
Z
c
S =
a
a` ac ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ Q ¢ ¢ Q

p?
Ql N
C
O U r N m N 8
O

U) Z cc m cc
N

J N Z (n U) N
N N (A
N

q

m
z
1
.i 1 m ?7 Q7 a7

q?
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
January 9, 1997
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
Action ID Nos. 199701747, 199701748, 199701749, 199701750, 199701751,
199701752, and 199701753 (Various bridge replacement projects)
C E -4
t
Mr. Frank Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch SAN
Division of Highways z " fy,,
North Carolina Department of Transportation Q
S Post Office Box 25201 Hr^ ?I,?,.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201 Fyn
Dear Mr. Vick:
Reference the letters dated November 5, 1996, requesting comments on
potential environmental impacts and scope of work that should be performed for
the bridge replacement projects listed below (please reference our Action ID.
on any future correspondence regarding these projects):
a. Action ID. 199701753, TIP B-3028, Robeson County, Bridge No. 51 on NC
210 over Gallberry Swamp.
b. Action ID. 199701752, TIP B-3043, Sampson County, Bridge No. 139 and
141 SR 1919 over Six Runs Creek.
c. Action ID. 199701751, TIP B-3031, Robeson County, Bridge No. 233 on SR
1318 over Big Raft Swamp.
d. Action ID. 199701750, TIP B-3155, Cumberland County, Bridge No. 194
over CSX Railroad.
e. Action ID. 199701749, TIP B-3215, Onslow County, Bridge 119 on SR 1406
over Northeast Creek.
f. Action ID. 199701748, TIP B-3216, Onslow County, Bridge No. 118 on SR
1406 over Northeast Creek overflow.
g. Action ID. 199701747, TIP 3029, Robeson County, Bridge No. 58 on NC 71
over Big Raft Swamp.

-2-
Although these projects may qualify for Nationwide Permit Authorization
(NWP 23) as a categorical exclusion, the project planning report should
contain sufficient information to document that the proposed activity does not
have more than a minimal individual or cumulative impact on the aquatic
environment. Accordingly, we offer the following comments and recommendations
to be addressed in the planning report:
a. The report should contain the amount of permanent and temporary
impacts to waters and wetlands as well as a description of the type of habitat
that will be affected.
b. Off-site detours are always preferable to on-site (temporary) detours
in wetlands. If an on-site detour is the recommended action, justification
should be provided.
c. Project commitments should include the removal of all temporary fills
from waters and wetlands. In addition, if undercutting is necessary for
temporary detours, the undercut material should be stockpiled to be used to
restore the site.
d. The report should address impacts to recreational navigation (if any)
if a bridge span will be replaced with a box culvert.
e. The report should address potential impacts to anadromous fish passage
if a bridge span will be replaced with culverts.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment during this phase of planning
for these projects. Questions or comments may be addressed to me in the
Wilmington Regulatory Field office at [phone].
Sincerely,
Scott McLendon
Regulatory Project Manager
Copy Furnished:
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
StA?t
n ? 3
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR- DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT )R.
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
Fayetteville, North Carolina 28302
December 6, 1996
MEMORANDUM TO: H. Franklin Vick, P. E.
Manager Planning and Environmental Branch
ATTENTION: Mr. Joe Westbrook, P. E.
Project Planning Engineer
FROM: W. S. Varnedoe, P. E. W s?i
Division Engineer
SUBJECT: Scoping Comments for B-3029, Bridge No. 58 on NC 71
over Big Raft Swamp in Robeson County.
Due to the existing APT as well as the truck traffic generated by the Campbell Soup, which
is continually growing, we recommend traffic be maintained with an on site detour.
A
- \J `1
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
March 3, 1997
p ?0WR
r I
2 0199x1

E, ' ,' `ERIAG CC . I .
Special Studies and
Flood Plain Services Section
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
This is in response to your multiple memorandums of November 5, 1996,
requesting our scoping comments on the replacements of three bridges in Robeson
County and two bridges each in Sampson and Onslow Counties. Complete information
on these projects was not received in our office until late January. Comments on these
bridge replacements are to be used in Planning and Environmental Studies
(Categorical Exclusions).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources, which
include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. The proposed
projects would not cross any Corps-constructed flood control or navigation project.
Enclosed are our comments on the other issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these projects. If we can be of
further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
C. E. Shuford, Jr., P.E.
Acting Chief, Engineering and
Planning Division
Enclosure
March 3, 1997
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
Bridge Replacements in Robeson, Sampson, and Onslow Counties (Categorical
Exclusions)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Mr. Bobby L. Willis, Special Studies and Flood Plain
Services Section, at [phone]
The proposed projects are located in Robeson and Sampson Counties and within
the jurisdiction of the city of Jacksonville in Onslow County, all of which participate in
the National Flood Insurance Program. From a review of the various Flood Insurance
Rate Maps (FIRMs) for Robeson and Sampson Counties, it appears that the affected
streams are mapped approximately. From Panel 6 of the February 1985 Jacksonville
Flood Boundary and Floodway Map, the SR 1406 crossing is on a detailed study
portion of Northeast Creek, which has 100-year flood elevations determined and a
foodway defined. A summary of flood plain information pertaining to these bridges is
contained in the following table. The FIRMs are from the county flood insurance study
except for the city of Jacksonville.
Bridge Route Study Date Of
No. No. County Stream Type FIRM
233 SR 1318
58 NC 71
51 NC 120
139 SR 1919
141 SR 1919
118 SR 1406
119 SR 1406
Robeson RaftSwamp
Robeson RaftSwamp
Robeson Gallberry Swamp
Sampson Six Runs Overflow
Sampson Six Runs Creek
Onslow Northeast Cr. Ovrfl
Onslow Northeast Creek
Approx 2/89
Approx 2/89
Approx 2/89
Approx 7/91
Approx 7/91
Detail 2/85"
Detail 2/85"
Within city of Jacksonville jurisdiction. Flood map is a city Fl. Boundary & FW Map.
With respect to the detailed study stream, we refer you to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency's "Procedures for 'No-Rise' Certification for Proposed
Developments in Regulatory Floodways", copies of which have been provided
previously to your office. We also suggest coordination with the respective counties
and community for compliance with their flood plain ordinance and any changes, if
required, to their flood insurance maps and/or reports.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mr. Scott McLendon, Wilmington Field
Office, Regulatory Branch, at [phone]
Regulatory Branch comments on these projects have been provided previously.
If you have any further questions related to Department of the Army permits, they
should be addressed to Mr. McLendon.

dM SiN(a?
?Y

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
September 29, 2000
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Mr. David Timpy
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
Subject: Robeson County, Replacement of Bridge No. 58 over Big Raft Swamp on
NC 71, Federal Project No. BRSTP-71(2), State Project No. 8.146270 1, T.I.P.
No. B-3029. AID No. 199701747.
Bridge No. 58 will be replaced on existing alignment with a new bridge
approximately 37 meters (120 feet) in length and 9.6 meters (32 feet) wide. On April 7,
2000 we submitted a request for a Nationwide 23 verification for the subject project.
Since that time we have refined the design of the project. We have eliminated the
on-site temporary detour. The traffic will be detoured on existing secondary roads thus
decreasing the temporary jurisdictional impacts by 0.88 acres. As noted in our April 7,
2000 application there will be 0.38 acres of permanent impact consisting of 0.052 acres of
fill in wetlands and 0.33 acres of mechanized clearing.
At the request of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC), there
will be a moratorium of instream work from April 1 and June 15 to avoid interfering with
fish reproduction.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N.
Gordon at 733-7844 extension 288.
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/attachment
Mr. David Franklin, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Tom McCartney, USFWS, Raleigh
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development Branch
Ms. Deborah Barbour, P.E:, Highway Design Branch
Mr. D. R. Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Timothy V. Rountree, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. Terry Gibson, P.E., Division 6 Engineer
Mr. Tom Kendig, P & E Project Planning Engineer Unit Head