20030053 Ver 1_Complete File_20030116

r'
.swc
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
December 17, 2002
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Mr. Richard Spencer
NCDOT Coordinator
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
1 , 6 ? ;? I
3
Ai ITY SCUP' ' P
ECT10h
SUBJECT: Nationwide Permit Application 23 for the proposed replacement of
Bridge Nos. 62 and 82 and approaches on over Richland Swamp on NC 72
in Robeson County, Division 6. Federal Project No. BRSTP-72(2), State
Project No. 8.1463201, T.I.P. No. B-3692.
Dear Sir:
Please find enclosed three copies of the CE document for the above referenced project, along with
a project site map, permit drawings, and roadway design plan sheets. Bridge Nos. 62 and 82 will
be replaced on existing location. Since the publication of the CE in March 2001 the design has
been refined. The proposal to replace Bridge No. 62 with a 78 foot bridge has been changed to a
longer bridge of 100 feet and the proposed replacement structure for Bridge No. 82 has changed
from a steel pipe arch to 2 @ 60" reinforced concrete pipes. During construction traffic will be
detoured along existing area roads.
PROPOSED IMPACTS
One perennial surface water, Richland Swamp [DWQ Index No. 14-10-8-(0.5)] Class C Sw, will
be impacted at two sites by the proposed project. At Site 1, construction of the new bridge
will result in 0.004 acres of mechanized clearing in wetlands along with 0.0013 acres of surface
water fill for the placement of the bridge bents. At Site 2, installation of the proposed reinforced
concrete pipes will result in permanent impacts of 90.0 linear feet (0.060 ac fill in surface water)
along with 0.081 acres of fill in wetlands and 0.165 acres of mechanized clearing. These impacts
are depicted in the attached drawings. Bridge Nos. 62 and 82 will be removed without dropping
components into Waters of the United States.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548 WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH, NC
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered,
and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of March 07, 2002, the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service lists three federally protected species for Robeson County (Table 1).
Since the American alligator is listed as threatened due to similarity in appearance, it is not subject
to Section 7 consultation and a biological conclusion was not required. Biological Conclusions of
"No Effect" were rendered for red-cockaded woodpecker and Michaux's sumac. Habitat does
not exist within the project area for red-cockaded woodpecker. Micaux's sumac habitat does
exist within the project area along the roadsides. Plant-by-plant surveys have been conducted for
this species and no specimens were found. See attached survey memo, dated August 30, 2002,
for this latest Michaux's sumac survey information.
Table 1. Fed liv-Protected Snprips fnr Rnhpenn Cnnnty
Habitat Notes
Common Name Scientific Name Federal or Biological
Status Survvy Date Conclusion
American alligator Alligator T(S/A) Habitat Present N/A
mississi iensis
red-cockaded Picoides borealis E No Habitat No Effect
woodpecker
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii E Last Surveyed Not Effect
08/29/02
T(S/A)" denotes a species is listed based on similarity in appearance to other federal-listed crocodilians.
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
SUMMARY
Proposed project activities are being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
programmatic "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR § 771.115(b). The NCDOT
requests that these activities be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 (FR number 10, pages
2020-2095; January 15, 2002). We anticipate a 401 General Certification number 3361 will apply
to this project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0501(a) we are providing two copies of this
application to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of
Water Quality, for their records.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need additional
information please call Ms. Heather Montague at [phone].
Sincerely,
-1 aAQi7?
Gregory J. Thrope, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA

VCB/hwm
r
w/attachment
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Terry Gibson, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Jim Rerko, Division Environmental Officer
Mr. Drew Joyner, P.E., PDEA Project Planning Engineer
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
e?srAR•?
J?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
August 30, 2002
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
Teresa Hart, P.E., Unit Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
LYNDo TIPPE7T
SECRETARY
Heather W. Montague, Environmental Specialis
Office of the Natural Environment
SUBJECT: Protected Species Re-Survey for the proposed
replacement of Bridge Nos. 62 and 82 on NC 72
over Richland Swamp in Robeson County.
Federal Aid No. BRSTP-72(2), State Project No.
8.1463201; TIP No. B-3692.
ATTENTION: Drew Joyner, P.E., Planning Engineer
Consultant Engineering Unit
This memo serves to document a protected species survey for TIP project No. B-3692.
On August 29, 2002; NCDOT biologists Heather Montague and Michael Turchy
surveyed the project area for the presence of Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). A plant
by plant survey was conducted in all areas along the project alignment containing
potential habitat for this species and no specimens were found. Additionally, a review of
the Natural Heritage Program database (last updated on May 5, 2002) revealed no
occurrences of Michaux's sumac within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of the project study area.
Therefore, the biological conclusion of `No Effect' remains valid for Michaux's sumac.
cc: File: B-3692
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE. [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBS/TE.' WWW.N000r.0PG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

VICINITY AL4P
D
\,SR 1505 -
\ AGO 06 \ /
S? /3jg I\- S R 1507
SITE
1345 \ ? - ?
C N \ \
U ?-
2 \
0
?C7
7a
CO
7
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ROBESON COUNTY
PROJECT.• 8.1463201 (B-3692)
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NOS.
62 AND 82 AND APPROACHES OVER
RICHLAND SWAMP ON NC 72
SHEET 1 OF 9 S28ro2
g
b
w
g
0
0
0
0
g
LEGEND
----JLB WETLAND BOUNDARY X X X LIVE STAKES
X X
L
BOULDER
C2D
WETLAND
L
DENOTES FILL IN --- CORE FIBER ROLLS
WETLAND
®
® DENOTES FILL IN PROPOSED BRIDGE
SURFACE WATER
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
(POND)
DENOTES TEMPORARY
F ----?
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
ILL IN WETLAND
DENOTES EXCAVATION (DASHED LINES DENOTE
IN WETLAND
® EXISTNG STRUCTURES)
DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
®
WATER SINGLE TREE
D DENOTES MECHANIZED
"
"
CLEARING
•
•
WOODS LINE
-r- ?- FLOW DIRECTION

TB ¦ DRAINAGE INLET
- T OP OF BANK
?
WE
- EDGE OF WATER
-
? ROOTWAD
-
- PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
- A PROP. RIGHT OF WAY RIP RAP
- -NG - - NATURAL GROUND
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
- ?- PROPERTY LINE O
5 OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
- TOE - TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-POE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB - EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
-EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
--------- WATER SURFACE

N
O D ? n
h N ?°V
h ee o WWI
ax ?S??eO
I , b W
II o z?°?3
I i o ? ti
o x w ti zA?
END PROJECT w o cW,?? o
A A CIE,
b
\ N
F-
W W
W F-
= In
p N
Z F-
O W W
W F-
2 V)
v?
F- L -Li
w
r_
w
? w
= v?
v
V)
I? BEGIN PROJECT
It
II
I,
II
I
4
.E
g
.o
N
8
N
N
O

I S

N
U
Z

? r?
4N
ai `q
0
MATCH LINE SHEET S
? C7 ? o ?O
LLJ I I U ? ?
Q I I I ? 0 ?? 0?3
I I O oo Ir
m w O Z W 1i
xq?
I I I f. 4 Q4 a
? I W S ? O U?? R
w i II q q g ?qv ?
L'j
W i -'13 d
x?? W
IGII
o l5 C e
00+ Sl W w
j IPD
w
W' I
w
I i ILl- w
LLJ
8 ? o
W
W iv
a z w [??
x ^1
¢ 4
LLJ
/ W
(n J '_`
1 W (-7 rW
O
LLJ W
? Sos -:
I /? O O
r . ••
wvl ?'(I
IL
I I
?qqJ a
aw?l v0\
I ? T I - ?w
I I ?a
I I
h
PAID 3
O ? I I
w I I
k? 11.4 I I
Q L j
Ri I I ? ?
I '
q I ?
W I I L j
I
I ? 0
I I I
W I LO
O
i w i Ww
N
8
N
N
O

I

N
8
N
\
nz)
N
MATCH LINE SHEET 6
• •w
00, 6/
m
J
3

00+ 8/ I
L

Q L
co
J
3

00+ Z/

LL
a
oa

3
w
00+9/
O
W
N
Z Z
J = Z ?Tl
J O W ? L_. N
"a Fa
N W
W W N J T,
O3 FW-U 1~
Z O
W Z
O W
O
?a
o?
A
3
0
0
/Y
N
MATCH LINE SHEET 4
G_
O
0
0
o
a
N
8
N
W
N
n
L I I N
I I I
I I
I I Ld ti 0 0^ S
I
I I I
w I I [~ y N Z U
I uJ
I I ? ap, ? ? °? eo
h V ?O
? w I I \ U / 'r p o ai
O
m I I _?/ O O 0?3
00+ fZ
o z w ?;A
? I I 1 W s ? O U?? w
k W I I O
ELI I °O /• U Q A 4 Z y `o
j I viii ??L1
U ?
w
L-Li
W
,vw
O0+Z g?M 1 /? W
I •
.? I N
11 N I Z ZW a?
I
-j ° wM N
u a LL; Ea .4
J
WLj Nw W
(nJ
W 4J L1J w
3 r a ?u
• ".
00+/Z
?N* 3
co Lvq w m
a I •• • I
A I
3 I ` w
I
I
?. I •. w
• I.
I Q
I ?7
0o'0z
I w W
I °` O
w A LO
I
? I
•I I
• I i I "
I I • w
co
3 I I
MATCH LINE SHEET S o
t
h
4
6
b
F
g
0
0
C
8
N
N
n
CI ?l c
oo^
N w`'z
IT
x o
? o o ? 0 3
wS ao??? o
A A 4 ?xU ?.
NO
O O
I
i I
°
SONV713M 30 3903
SONV713M 30 3903 Q I
I I
N- -N I
I +
tl-% N N N
I w -? w
QCD
SONY713M 30 3903
I SONV713M 30 3903
I \
II o -0 1 CVO 0
I I
06
°- -° I
w
O w
J
r Q
U
N
? ?I O ?I ?I LnI D ?I
PROPERTY 0 KWER
NAME AND ADDRESS
OWNER'S NAME
O1 W. D. REYNOLDS, JR.
O PHILADELPHUS PRESBYTERIAN
FOUNDATION, INC.
ADDRESS
101 RILEY PLACE
WASHINGTON, NC 27889
P. O. BOX 1067
LUMBERTON, NC 28359
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ROBESON COUNTY
N
8
PROJECT.• 8.1463201 (B-3692)
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NOS.
62 AND 82 AND APPROACHES OVER
RICHLAND SWAMP ON NC 72
I I SHEET 8 OF 9 528472

m E
m
(U 0 n
a $
(4
zoo RZ0

a M
? z
U) N M?
C g xx

CL w
E O0 m0a
0 xvcm

m
A
00
?
Q U- w
,4
x AQ

? E
v = o V
C
0 r?Ey;?11?
w Z y0 WCq a

U U H

a w
S

a
U
N oaAV x
a

N
c
0° a?
a
a m
- o N
L
_

C ,
lC
S
O pp
O
Z O o 0

Q C T
m In
co cr)
m m L
U o 0 0
N

U c N
2
g L) w m o
d x
w c
m
a g -? LL C
Z w
3 c in
v o
g

r?
iT-
o
0

a
U

CD a W

2 v
V5 tl

co CO

pp
O

N
a7
J
J
_
u-
J J
O L
O r
`
N LL. N

c i
`n S
E

d
coZ

N N
J
Q

H

Robeson County
NC 72
Bridge Nos. 62 and 82 over Richland Swamp
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-72(2) 030053
State Project No. 8.1463201
T.I.P. No. B-3692
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JAN
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION "`.... _..y...i
AND .._.._._,...__ ..
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
h Z
E'er WJrD. I ilmore, P.E., Man er
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
3 z o/
ATE
Nicholas L. Graf,
Division Administrator, FHWA
3V .7007
DkT-E
AOP-
Robeson County
NC 72
Bridge Nos. 62 and 82 over Richland Swamp
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-72(2)
State Project No. 8.1463201
T.I.P. No. B-3692
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
March 2001
Documentation Prepared By Ko & Associates, P.C.
CMIJi
• A'??`ir? 1.
L. rd, P.E. _ SEL ?
Project Manager - Ko & Associates 4661
1
For North Carolina Department of Transportation `?JC -1 Venn%^' L Th as R. Kendig, AICP
Consultant Engineering Un ead
JIV4
Robert Andrew ner, P.E.
Project Development Engineer
2
#Pr
Project Commitments
Robeson County
NC 72
Bridge Nos. 62 and 82 over Richland Swamp
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-72(2)
State Project No. 8.1463201
T.I.P. No. B-3692
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit #23 Conditions, the General Nationwide
Permit Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State
Consistency Conditions, NCDOTs Guidelines for Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for
Bridge Demolition and Removal, General Certifications, and Section 401 Conditions of
Certification, the following special commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
NONE
Categorical Exclusion
March 2001
Green Sheet
Sheet 1 of 1
3
#T_ I
Robeson County
NC 72
Bridge Nos. 62 and 82 over Richland Swamp
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-72(2)
State Project No. 8.1463201
T.I.P. No. B-3692
Bridge Nos. 62 and 82 are located in Robeson County on NC 72 where it crosses
Richland Swamp. Bridge Nos. 62 and 82 are included in the Draft North Carolina
Department of Transportation 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement Program and are
part of the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure
1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a
Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge Nos. 62 and 82 will be replaced at their existing locations with a bridge structure
78 feet (23.8 meters) in length and an 142-inch (360.7-centimeter) x 91-inch (231.1-
centimeter) corrugated steel pipe arch respectively. During the construction period, the
existing road will be closed to through traffic which will be rerouted along existing roads.
The estimated cost for the recommended proposed improvement is $ 833,500. The
current estimated cost of the project, as shown in the Draft NCDOT 2002-2008
Transportation Improvement Program, is $ 50,000 for right-of-way and $ 500,000 for
construction.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
NC 72 crosses over Richland Swamp approximately 4 miles (6.4 kilometers) south of
Red Springs in Robeson County. Development in the immediate area is sparse with a
single residential dwelling and outbuildings on the east side of the south approach. The
predominant land uses are agricultural and tree husbandry. The residence could be
impacted by the studied alternatives if temporary detours on the east side are the
recommended replacement alternate. NC 72 is classified as a Rural Major Collector in
the Statewide Functional Classification System.
NC 72 has a current pavement width of 20 feet (6.0 meters) with 8-foot (2.4-foot)
shoulders (2 feet (0.6 meters) paved) in the area of the bridges. The roadway
4

approaches are tangent sections with a flat vertical alignment in the proximity of the
existing structures. There is a slight right curve approaching the bridge from the south
and a similar left curve leaving the bridge continuing north. Neither curve will be
affected by any replacement alternative. Sight distance is good both to the north and to
the south.
The traffic volumes on NC 72 at Richland Swamp are currently 1900 vehicles per day
(vpd) and are projected to be 4100 vpd for the design year 2025. The volumes include
an estimated 3 % truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 3 % dual-tired (DT) vehicles.
The posted speed limit is 55 mph in the vicinity of the bridge. _
Bridge No. 62 as shown in Figures 2A and 213 has an overall length of 52.0 feet (15.9
meters) (3 spans at 17.3 feet (5.3 meters)) and a clear roadway width of 24.0 feet (7.2
meters). The existing two-lane bridge has a reinforced concrete deck on I-beam girders
supported by reinforced concrete caps on timber piles at various centers. The structure
was constructed in 1959. Bridge No. 62 is not currently posted. The bridge has a
sufficiency rating of 48.7 compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure and
approaches. Bridge No. 62 has a bed-to-crown distance of approximately 16 feet (4.8
meters). Bridge No. 62 has been repaired with a steel beam crutch bent at the south
end bent.
Bridge No. 62 is immediately east of the dam and spillway that contains Richland
Swamp. The bridge structure itself is not a part of the retention structure but caution
must be exercised in the construction of the replacement structure so as not to damage
the existing dam and spillway.
Bridge No. 82 as shown in Figures 2C and 2D has an overall length of 52.0 feet (15.9
meters) (3 spans at 17.3 feet (5.3 meters)) and a clear roadway width of 24.0 feet (7.2
meters). The existing two-lane bridge has a reinforced concrete deck on I-beam girders
supported by reinforced concrete caps on timber piles at various centers. The structure
was constructed in 1959. Bridge No. 82 is not currently posted. The bridge has a
sufficiency rating of 14.0 compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure and
approaches. Bridge No. 82 has a bed-to-crown distance of approximately 9 feet (2.7
meters). Bridge No. 82 has also been repaired with steel beam crutch bents.
Bridge No. 82 is also immediately east of the Richand Swamp overflow. However, the
same precautionary concerns relative to the construction of the replacement structure
do not exist at this location as compared to the replacement of Bridge No. 62.
5
f-
Two accidents were reported in the vicinity of the bridges during the period from
February 1, 1997 to January 1, 2000. Each accident involved a single vehicle running
off the road during the evening hours. One accident involved a single fatality. The total
accident rate on NC 72 in the vicinity of Bridges 62 and 82 is 198.96 accidents per 100
million vehicle miles of travel (320.20 accidents per 100 million vehicle kilometers). This
compares to 228.87 accidents per 100 vehicle miles of travel (368.34 accidents per 100
million vehicle kilometers) for two-lane, undivided, NC numbered routes.
There are no utilities attached to either bridge. Overhead power lines parallel NC 72
along the west side and underground/overhead telephone lines parallel NC 72 along the
east side. Utility conflicts should be considered as moderate to low.
Public school buses cross the present bridge 2 times per day
Ill. ALTERNATIVES
Given the existing tangent section, the proximity of Richland Swamp impoundment, and
the low area immediately east of NC 72, new location alternates are not considered
feasible or prudent. Based on preliminary hydrographic studies, the most feasible
alternative is to replace the existing bridge structures with new structures at their
respective existing alignments. The studied alternates were (1) to replace the
structures at their respective existing locations with temporary detours on the east side
and (2) to replace the structures at their respective existing locations closing NC 72 and
utilizing an off-site detour. The posted speed limit is 55 mph (88.5 kmph) and the
corresponding design speed is 60 mph (96.5 kmph). With a 60 mph (96.5kmph) design
speed, the grade at the crossing will approximate the existing grade. (See Figures 3 and
4).
The recommended replacement structure for Bridge No. 62 is a new bridge structure 78
feet (23.8 meters) long with a 40-foot (12.2-meter) clear roadway width. The
recommended replacement structure for Bridge No. 82 is a 142-inch (360.7 centimeter)
x 91-inch (231.1 centimeter) corrugated steel pipe arch approximately 45 feet (13.7
meters) long. The grade of the roadway over the new structures will be approximately
the same as the existing grade. The approaches to the new structures will have a
pavement width of 28 feet (8.5 meters) including 2-foot (0.6-meter) paved shoulders.
Six feet (1.8 meters) of grassed shoulder will also be provided on each side. The
design speed will be 60 mph (96.5 kmph). The recommended off-site detour is shown
in Figure 5.
1
6

The No-Build or "do-nothing" alternate was also considered but this choice would
eventually necessitate closure of the bridges. This is not a desirable alternative due to
the traffic service provided by NC 72.
Investigation of the existing structure by the NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates
that rehabilitation of the old bridges is not feasible due to their age and deteriorated
condition. The existing bridges are classified as structurally deficient.
IV. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternatives studied, based on current prices, are shown in
the following table:
Alternate 1 Alternate 2
With On-site With Off-site
Detours East Detour
Side
Structure Removal $20,000.00 $ 20,000.00

Structure $ 247,500.00 $ 247,500.00

Roadway Approaches $ 206,950.00 $ 206,950.00

Mobilization and Miscellaneous $ 215,550.00 $ 215,550.00

Engineering and Contin encies $ 110 000.00 $ 110,000.00

Tem ora Detours 800 000.00 0.00
SUBTOTAL 1 600 000.00 800 000.00

Ri ht-of-Wa /Const. Ease./Util. $ 109,500.00 $ 33,500.00

TOTAL $ 1,709,500.00 $ 833,500.00
The above estimates are based on functional design plans; therefore, 45 % has been
included for miscellaneous items and contractor mobilization, and 15 % for engineering
and contingencies.
7

V. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
The recommended replacement structure for Bridge No. 62 is a new bridge structure 78
feet (23.8 meters) long with a 40-foot (12.2-meter) clear roadway width. The
recommended replacement structure for Bridge No. 82 is a 142-inch (360.7-centimeter)
x 91-inch (231.1-centimeter) corrugated steel pipe arch approximately 45 feet (13.7
meters) long. The grade of the roadway over the new structures will be approximately
the same as the existing grade. The approaches to the new structures will have a
pavement width of 28 feet (8.5 meters) including 2-foot (0.6-meter) paved shoulders.
An additional 6 feet (1.8 meters) of grassed shoulder will also be provided on each side.
The design speed will be 60 mph (96.5 kmph).
Alternate 2 (Recommended) involves replacing the existing structures with the
recommended replacement structures at their respective existing locations, closing NC
72 to through traffic during the construction period, and utilizing an off-site detour.
Alternate 2 is shown in Figure 4 and the recommended off-site detour is shown in
Figure 5.
The Division Office has been consulted and expressed a desire for an on-site detour on
the east side of the bridge. However, the Division indicated that if an on-site detour was
problematic, that an off-site detour utilizing NC 72, SR 1318 and NC 710 would be
recommended. This is the recommended detour route.
VI. TRAFFIC DETOUR
On-site detours east of each of the existing bridges were investigated. The estimated
combined construction cost of the temporary detours for both structures is
$ 800, 000.00.
The feasibility of an off-site detour was also investigated. The studied off-site detour
route included SR 1318 (Mount Zion Church Road), NC 710 and NC 72. The detour
route is characterized by 18-foot (5.5-meter), bituminous surface-treated, two-lane
roadways with 6- to 8-foot (1.8- to 2.4-meter) grassed shoulders. The implied speed
limit is 55 mph (88.5 kmph) in lieu of specified postings. There are no posted structures
on this detour route. There is a pipe under NC 710. The length of this route is
approximately 5.9 miles (9.5 kilometers). There is no obvious origin-destination pattern
evident with the exception of NC 72 being the continuous highest signed route.
Conservatively estimating that the current average daily traffic of 1900 vehicles would
experience the entire 5.9 miles (9.5 kilometers) additional travel during a 12-month
8
4
construction period, the estimated road user cost is $ 1,329,800 (at 32.5 cents per mile
(20.2 cents per kilometer)). On the other hand, if all the traffic was through traffic on NC
72, the excess travel is only 0.4 mile (0.6 kilometer), resulting in additional road user
costs of $ 90,200. The resulting benefit cost ratios range from 1.7 to 0.1, comparing the
on-site detour cost to the additional road user costs. Closing NC 72 during 1
construction is the recommended alternate.
By utilizing the off-site detour alternate, both structures could be constructed
simultaneously saving significant construction time. The monetary and time savings
that accrue by avoiding construction of the temporary detours is significant. _
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
Introduction
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes two alternatives
for replacement of Bridges No. 62 and No. 82 on NC 72 over Richland Swamp in
Robeson County. Bridge No. 62 spans the main channel of Richland Swamp while
Bridge No. 82 crosses a small backwater slough associated with the Richland Swamp
floodplain. Alternate 1 calls for replacement of both bridges in place, with construction
of two temporary detour alignments to the east of the existing alignment (Figure 3). The
proposed right-of-way for Alternate 1 is approximately 1200 feet (366 meters) in length
and 80 (24.4 meters) in width (20 feet (6.0 meters) wider than existing right-of-way) with
a temporary easement for each bridge extending 65 feet (19.8 meters) to the east of the
proposed right-of-way. Alternate 2 calls for replacement of two bridges in place with an
off-site detour (Figure 4). The proposed right-of-way for Alternate 2 is approximately
1200 (366 meters) in length and 80 feet (24.4 meters) in width (20 feet (6.0 meters)
wider than existing right-of-way).
Bridge No. 62 has an overall length of 52 feet (15.8 meters), a width of 24 feet (7.2
meters), and a bed-to-crown distance of 16 feet (4.8 meters). The existing two-lane
bridge consists of a reinforced concrete floor on I-beam girders. The substructure
consists of reinforced concrete caps on timber piles. The bridge sections will be
removed without dropping any components into waters of the United States. No
temporary fill is expected to result from removal of the existing bridge.
Bridge No. 82 has an overall length of 52 feet (15.8 meters), a width of 24 feet (7.2
meters), and a bed-to-crown distance of 16 feet (4.8 meters). The existing two-lane
bridge consists of a reinforced concrete floor on I-beam girders. The substructure
9
3

consists of reinforced concrete caps on timber piles. The bridge sections will be
removed without dropping any components into waters of the United States. Bridge No.
82 will be replaced by a 11.8 x 7.6 foot (3.6 x 2.3 meter) corrugated steel pipe arch.
Permanent fill is expected to result from replacement of the existing bridge with a steel
pipe.
Purpose
The purpose of the natural systems report is to provide an evaluation of biological
resources in the immediate area of potential project impact (study corridor).
Specifically, the tasks performed for this study include: (1) an assessment of biological
features within the study corridor including descriptions of vegetation, wildlife, protected
species, jurisdictional wetlands, and water quality; (2) a delineation of Section 404
jurisdictional areas and subsequent survey of jurisdictional boundaries (utilizing Trimble
XRS Differential Global Positioning System [DGPS] technology); (3) an evaluation of
probable impacts resulting from construction and (4) a preliminary determination of
permit needs.
Methods
Materials and literature supporting this investigation have been derived from a number
of sources including U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic mapping (Red Springs
and Pembroke, NC 7.5 minute quadrangles), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
National Wetlands Inventory mapping (NWI) (Red Springs and Pembroke, NC 7.5
minute quadrangles), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS; formerly the
Soils Conservation Service) soils mapping (USDA 1978), and recent aerial photography
(scale 1:1200) furnished by Ko and Associates, Inc.
The site was visited on August 30, 2000. The study corridor was walked and visually
surveyed for significant features. For purposes of this evaluation, the study corridor was
assumed to be the same as right-of-way and temporary easement boundaries. Actual
impacts will be limited to cut-fill boundaries and are expected to be less than those
shown for the right-of-way. Special concerns evaluated in the field include potential
protected species habitat, and wetlands and water quality protection in Richland
Swamp.
The field work for this investigation was conducted by EcoScience Corporation
biologists Adam McIntyre and Shay Garriock.
10
4
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When
appropriate, community classifications were modified to better reflect field observations.
Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968) with
exceptions for updated nomenclature. Jurisdictional areas were evaluated using the
three-parameter approach following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) delineation
guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were characterized according to a
classification scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979). Aquatic and terrestrial
wildlife habitat requirements and distributions were determined by supportive literature
(Martof et al. 1980; Potter et al. 1980; Webster et al. 1985; Menhinick 1991; Hamel -
1992; Palmer and Braswell 1995; Rohde et al. 1994). Water quality information for area '
streams and tributaries was derived from available sources (DWQ 1999, 1997).
Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
The most current FWS listing of federally protected species with ranges extending into
Robeson County (June 16, 2000) was obtained prior to initiation of the field
investigation. In addition, NHP records documenting presence of federal- or state-listed
species were consulted before commencing field investigations.
Project Area
The study corridor is located approximately 4 miles (6.4 kilometers) south of Red
Springs, NC in a rural area of Robeson County along NC 72 at Richland Swamp, and is
nested between SR 1507 approximately 0.2 mile (0.3 kilometer) to the north and
SR 1318 approximately 0.1 mile (0.2 kilometer) to the south (Figure 1). The study
corridor spans the channel of Richland Swamp and the associated floodplain for a
distance of 1200 feet (366 meters). The dike of an unnamed impoundment occurs
approximately 45 feet west of the study corridor, and parallels the study corridor for a
distance of approximately 1000 feet (305meters). Outfall from the impoundment is
located approximately 50 feet (15.2 meters) upstream of Bridge No. 62, forming the
continuation of the Richland Swamp channel. The western side of the study corridor
supports a disturbed plant community dominated by grasses, while the eastern side
supports primarily mature bottomland hardwood forest.
Physiography and Soils
The study corridor is underlain by the Cretaceous Black Creek geologic formation within
the inner Coastal Plain physiographic province of North Carolina. Topography is
characterized as gently undulating with wide floodplains and broad, flat interstream

I
11

divides. The study corridor is located in, and adjacent to, the floodplain of Richland
Swamp. Elevations in the study corridor are relatively level and average approximately
170 feet (51.8 meters) National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) (USGS Red Springs,
NC quadrangle). Soil mapping units underlying the study corridor are Johnston soils
(Cumulic Humaquepts) and Wagram loamy sand soils (Arenic Paleaudults). The
Johnston series occurs on floodplains of natural drainageways and is prone to frequent
flooding for long periods. This series occurs throughout the entire floodplain area of the
study corridor. The Johnston series is poorly drained and permeability is moderate
(USDA 1978). Johnston soils are hydric in Robeson County (NRCS 1997). The
Wagram series occurs on nearly level to gently sloping uplands. This soil occurs on the
northern and southernmost portions of the study corridor. The Wagram series is a well-
drained soil and permeability is moderately rapid (USDA 1978). Wagram soils are non-
hydric in Robeson County (NRCS 1997).
WATER RESOURCES
Waters Impacted
The study corridor is located within sub-basin 03-07-52 of the Lumber River Basin
(DWQ 1999). This area is part of USGS Hydrologic Unit 03040203 of the Mid-
Atlantic/Gulf Region. Structures targeted for replacement span the open water stream
associated with Richland Swamp, and an impoundment dike seepage slough. There is
no direct involvement of additional streams or tributaries. This section of Richland
Swamp has been assigned Stream Index Number 4-10-8-3-(1) by the N.C. Division of
Water Quality (DWQ 1999). The nearest tributary to Richland Swamp is Panther
Branch (according to USGS mapping), which joins Richland Swamp approximately 3
miles (4.8 kilometers) downstream of the study corridor.
Stream Characteristics
Richland Swamp is a well-defined, Coastal Plain, black-water river with moderate flow
over sandy substrate. At Bridge No. 62, Richland Swamp is approximately 50 feet (15.2
meters) wide and 6 feet (1.8 meters) from top of banks to stream surface. Just
downstream of the bridge Richland Swamp has moderately steep banks averaging 2
feet (0.6 meter) high. During field investigations of Richland Swamp, water clarity of
was good, flow velocity was moderate, and water depth was approximately 5 feet (1.5
meters). The streambed is composed of sand and mud. The associated floodplain
extends throughout most of the eastern (downstream) study corridor, portions of which
have hydric soils, support hydrophytic vegetation, and are inundated with water. A
12
4
water level control structure is located 50 feet (15.2 meters) west (upstream) of the
bridge where the outfall from a 60-acre, unnamed impoundment exists. The eastern
shore and dike of the impoundment abut the western side of NC 72 for approximately
1000 feet (305 meters) between Bridges No. 62 and No. 82.
Bridge No. 82 crosses a small drainage slough historically associated with a spillway,
but now most likely associated with seepage from the dike. A ditch along the west
roadside directs collected water to the Bridge No. 82 crossing and into the Richland
Swamp floodplain. At Bridge No. 82, the slough is 50 feet (15.2 meters) in width,
narrowing to 15 feet (4.6 meters) approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters) east of the bridge. -
Bridge height above the water surface is approximately 5 feet (1.5 meters). During field
investigations, water clarity was good, water depth was approximately 6 feet (1.8
meters), and there was no apparent flow. Banks are gradually sloping and average 1
foot (0.3 meter) high. The streambed is composed of mud, and submerged aquatic
vegetation is present.
Best Usage Classifications and Water Quality

Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the
existing or contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the
basin. A best usage classification of C Sw has been assigned to Richland Swamp. The
designation C denotes that appropriate uses include aquatic life propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Secondary recreation
refers to human body contact with waters on an infrequent or incidental basis. The Sw
designation refers to swamp waters that are naturally more acidic and lower in dissolved
oxygen levels. No designated High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW), Water Supply I (WS-1), or Water Supply II (WS-II) waters occur within
1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor (DWQ 1999).
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) (previously known as the Division of ,
Environmental Management, Water Quality Section [DEM]) has initiated a whole-basin
approach to water quality management for the 17 river basins within the state. Water
quality for the proposed study corridor is summarized in the Lumber River basinwide
water quality plan (DWQ 1999). Richland Swamp is rated as Supporting Threatened
of designated uses. Richland Swamp is not rated for ambient water quality; however,
Raft Swamp, 4.5 miles (7.2 kilometers) north of the study corridor, has a
bioclassification rating of Good-Fair based on macroi nve rteb rate community sampling
(DWQ 1999).
13.
s
I?
This sub-basin (03-07-52) supports two major point-source dischargers (Red Springs
and Laurinburg-Maxton Airport Waste Water Treatment Plants [WW TP]) and no minor
point-source dischargers. Total permitted flow for the two major dischargers is 3.5
million gallons per day (MGD)(13.2 million liters per day [MLD]). The Red Springs
WWTP is the only large discharger in this sub-basin, discharging 2.5 MGD (9.5 MLD)
into Little Raft Swamp. Red Springs WWTP is located in the town of Red Springs, NC
approximately 4 miles (6.7 kilometers) north of the study corridor. There are no
discharges associated with Richland Swamp. Major non-point sources of pollution for
the entire Lumber River Basin are agriculture, urban, construction, forestry, mining,
onsite wastewater disposal, solid waste disposal, and atmospheric deposition.
Sedimentation and nutrient inputs are major problems associated with non-point source
discharges and often result in fecal coliform, heavy metals, oil from roads and parking
lots, and increased nutrient levels in surface waters (DWQ 1999).
Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized
through implementation of a standard erosion control schedule and the use of best
management practices. The contractor will follow contract specifications pertaining to
erosion control measures as outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article 107-13
entitled "Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution" (NCDOT, Specifications for Roads
and Structures). These measures include the use of dikes, berms, silt basins, and other
containment measures to control runoff; elimination of construction staging areas in
floodplains and adjacent to waterways; re-seeding of herbaceous cover on disturbed
sites; management of chemicals (herbicides, pesticides, de-icing compounds) with
potential negative impacts on water quality; and avoidance of direct discharges into
steams by catch basins and roadside vegetation.
The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of pre-project stream flows
in Richland Swamp, thereby protecting the integrity of these waterways. Long-term
impacts to adjacent reaches resulting from construction are expected to be negligible.
In order to minimize impacts to water resources, NCDOT Best Management Practices
(BMPs) for the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly enforced during the entire life
of the project.
There is little potential for components of the bridge to be dropped into waters of the
United States. Therefore, no temporary fill is expected to result from removal of the
existing bridge. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal (BMP-BDR) must be applied for the removal of this bridge.
14
V
f
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Plant Communities

Three distinct plant communities were identified within the study corridor: Coastal Plain
Bottomland Hardwoods, Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest, and roadside/disturbed land.
These plant communities are described below.
Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods (Blackwater Subtype) - Coastal Plain
Bottomland Hardwoods is a natural plant community described by Schafale and
Weakley (1990), and occurs along stream margins and throughout the Lumber River
floodplain east of NC 72 and between Bridges No. 62 and No. 82. This community
represents approximately 35 percent of the total vegetated study corridor area. Canopy
species include Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides), sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), water oak (Quercus nigra), and red maple (Acer rubrum). The sub-
canopy/shrub community consists of laural oak (Quercus laurifolia), American holly (Ilex
opaca), sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), wax myrtle (Myrica
cerifera), cane (Arundinaria gigantea), fetter-bush (Lyonia lucida), and water willow
(Decodon verticillatus). Herbaceous vegetation includes lizard's tail (Saururus
cernuus), netted-chain fern (Woodwardia areolata), and royal fern (Osmunda regalis).
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest - Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest is a natural plant ,
community described by Schafale and Weakley (1990), and occurs in wooded areas
east of NC 72 and south of Bridge No. 62. This community represents approximately 20
percent of the total vegetated study corridor area. Canopy species are loblolly pine
(Pinus taeda), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), sweetgum, and red maple. The sub-
canopy/shrub community consists of water oak, red maple, mockernut hickory (Carya
tomentosa), and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). Herbaceous vegetation includes _
ebony spleenwort (Asp/enium platyneuron), greenbriar (Smilax sp.), and wisteria
(Wisteria sp.).
Roadside/disturbed Land - Roadside/disturbed land is defined as the present
maintained roadside margins, residential lawns, and agricultural areas within the study
corridor. This plant community represents approximately 45 percent of the total
vegetated study corridor area. Plant species include bitterweed (Helenium amarum),
crabgrass (Digitaria sp.), broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), trumpet vine (Campsis
radicans), dayflower (Commelina sp.), horse nettle (Solanum carolinense), Chinese
privet (Ligustrum sinense), red mulberry (Morus rubra), chinaberry (Melia azedarach),
15

W
dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), Joe-pye weed
(Eupatorium ffstulosum), cane, and muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia).
Plant Community Impacts within the Study Corridor
Plant community areas are estimated based on the amount of each plant community
present within the projected right-of-ways. Permanent impacts are considered to be
those impacts that occur within the cut-fill limits. Temporary impacts are those impacts
that occur between cut-fill limits and the proposed right-of-way. A summary of potential
plant community impacts is presented in Table 1. Based on the proposed right-of-way
and temporary easements, impacts to natural plant communities are greater for
Alternate 1 because of the temporary detour bridges and filling associated with the
alignment. However, no permanent impacts to natural plant communities are
anticipated for either alternate.
Permanent impacts to plant communities resulting from bridge replacements are
generally restricted to narrow strips adjacent to the existing bridge and roadway
approach segments. Very little area of natural plant community is expected to be
impacted by the proposed project. From an ecological perspective, impacts of
upgrading existing road facilities are minimal. No additional fragmentation of plant
communities will be created, as the project will result only in alteration of community
boundaries. Much of the alignment is currently bounded by a maintained right-of-way,
therefore, the proposed project may only claim narrow strips of adjacent natural
communities.
Table 1. Area (acres [hectares]) of Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Plant Communities
Bridges No. 62 and No. 82
PLANT COMMUNITY (over Richland Swamp)
Temporary Permanent Total Temporary Permanent Total
Coastal Plain Bottomland 0.81 -- 0.81 0.25 -- 0
25
Hardwoods (0.33) -- (0.33) (0.1) -- .
(0
1)
Mesic Mixed Hardwood 0.41 -- 0.41 0.02 -- .
0
02
Forest (0.17) -- (0.17) (.01) .
(
01)
Roadside/disturbed Land 0.97 1.0 1.97 0.56 1.0 .
1.56
(0.39) (0.4) (0.79) (0.23) (0.4) (0.63)
TOTAL: 2.19 1.0 3.19 0.83 1.0 1.83
(0.89) (0.4) (1.29) (0.34) (0.4) (0.74)
16

Roadside-forest edges typically serve as vectors for movement of invasive species into
adjacent natural communities. An example of an undesirable invasive species utilizing
roadsides is kudzu (Pueraria lobata). The establishment of a hardy groundcover on
road shoulders as soon as practicable will limit the availability of construction areas to
invasive and undesirable plants.
Wildlife
Terrestrial
No signs of mammals were observed during the site visit. Mammal species which are '
expected to occur in North Carolina swamps and bottomland forests are marsh rabbit
(Sylvilagus palustris), beaver (Castor canadensis), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), raccoon (Procyon lotor), muskrat
(Ondatra zibethicus), mink (Mustela vison), southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), and
cotton mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus).
Birds observed within or adjacent to the corridor were downy woodpecker (Picoides
pubescens), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor),
great-crested flycatcher (Myiarchis crinitus), ruby-throated hummingbird (Archilochus
colubris), eastern kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus), and Carolina chickadee (Poecile
carolinensis). Other avian species expected to occur in the study corridor are
prothonotory warbler (Protonotaria citrea), yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus),
blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea), Acadian flycatcher (Empidonax virescens),
American redstart (Setophaga ruticilla), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus),
barred owl (Strix varia), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), and wood duck (Aix
sponsa).
No terrestrial reptile or amphibian species were observed during the site visit. Some
terrestrial reptiles which may occur within the study corridor include eastern box turtle
(Terrapene caroling), Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis), eastern fence lizard
(Sceloporus undulatus), five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), rough green snake
(Opheodrys aestivus), worm snake (Carphophis amoenus), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta),
eastern kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula), eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis),
copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix), green treefrog (Hyla cineria), gray treefrog (Hyla
versicolor), southern toad (Bufo terrestris), and slimy salamander (Plethodon
cylindraceus).
17
R
Aquatic
Limited surveys resulted in no observations of aquatic reptile or amphibian species
within the study corridor. Aquatic or semi-aquatic reptiles and amphibians which are
expected to occur within the study corridor include snapping turtle (Chelydra
serpentina), mud turtle (Kinostemon subrubrum), yellowbelly slider (Trachemys scripta),
river cooter (Pseudemys concinna), brown water snake (Nerodia taxispilota), redbelly
water snake (Nerodia erythrogaster), cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus), eastern
newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum),
southern dusky salamander (Desmognathus auriculatus), mud salamander
(Pseudotriton montanus), and two-toed amphiuma (Amphiuma means).
No sampling was undertaken in Richland Swamp to determine fishery potential. Visual
surveys of Richland Swamp did not reveal the presence of fish, molluscan fauna, or
other aquatic life; however, fish species which may be present within the Richland
Swamp include golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), bluehead chub (Nocomis
leptocephalus), eastern mudminnow (Umbra pygmaea), margined madtom (Noturus
insignis), tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi), and yellow bullhead (Ameiurus
natalis). Potential game fish which may be present within the study corridor include
redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), bowfin (Amia calva), and largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides).
Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife
Richland Swamp is a Coastal Plain system, and anadromous fish passage should be
considered in the timing of any proposed in-stream activities associated with bridge
replacement. According to Rohde et al. (1994), six anadromous fish species have
distributions which include Robeson County. Only one of these species, striped bass
(Morone saxatilis), is documented to occur in the Lumber River basin (Menhinick 1991).
Design and scheduling of bridge replacement should avoid the necessity of in-stream
activities during the spring migration period for anadromous fish species (February 1 to
June 15) within the Lumber River and its tributaries, including Richland Swamp.
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, the proposed bridge
replacements will not result in substantial loss or displacement of known terrestrial
animal populations. No substantial habitat fragmentation is expected since most
improvements will be restricted to existing roadside margins. Construction noise and
associated disturbances will have short-term impacts on avifauna and migratory wildlife
movement patterns. However, long-term impacts are expected to be negligible.
18

Potential down-stream impacts to aquatic habitat will be avoided by bridging the
systems to maintain regular flow and stream integrity. Short-term impacts associated
with turbidity and suspended sediments will affect benthic populations. Temporary
impacts to downstream habitat from increased sediment during construction will be
minimized by the implementation of stringent erosion control measures.
SPECIAL TOPICS
Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the embankments of Richland Swamp are subject to jurisdictional
consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as waters of the United States
(33 CFR section 328.3). NWI mapping indicates that floodplains of Richland Swamp
exhibit characteristics of a palustrine, broad-leaved, deciduous forest system that is
temporarily flooded (PF01A) (Cowardin et aL 1979). Field investigations indicate that
within the study corridor, Richland Swamp is a black water Coastal Plain stream with
adjacent wetlands. Wetlands adjacent to Richland Swamp are subject to jurisdictional
consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as waters of the United States.
(33 CFR section 328.3). These areas are defined by the presence of three primary
criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of hydrology at or near the
surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season (DOA 1987). NWI mapping
indicates that floodplains of Richland Swamp exhibit characteristics of a palustrine,
broad-leaved, deciduous forest system that is temporarily flooded (PF01A) (Cowardin
et al. 1979). Field investigations indicate that wetlands occur in the floodplain of
Richland Swamp, extending east of NC 72 between Bridges No. 62 and No. 82. These
wetlands satisfy the three-parameter approach outlined by the COE (DOA 1987; see
attached Routine Wetland Determination data forms). Wetland vegetation species are
Atlantic white cedar, sweet bay, netted-chain fern, lizard's tail, water willow, spatterdock
(Nuphar luteum), and watershield (Brasenia schreberl). These plants are growing on
Johnston soils which exhibit values, chromas, and mottles characteristic of hydric soils.
Evidence of wetland hydrology includes surface drainage, pooling, and oxidized root
channels. The areas of wetland within the alternative right-of-ways and the areas and
linear distances of stream shaded by proposed bridging are shown in Table 2.
19

T
Table 2. Potential Wetland and Open Water Impacts (area and linear
distance of stream impacts are from bridge shading)
Jurisdictional nitul I ICAO L
Type
Temporary Permanent Total Temporary Permanent Total
Wetland Area
(acres 0.85 0.05 0.90 0.25 0.05 0.30

[hectares]) (0.34) (0.02) (0.37) (0.1)
(0.02)
(0.13)
Stream Area
(acres 0.03 0.03 0.06 - 0.03 0.03

[hectares]) (0.01) (0.01) (0.02)
(0.01)
(0.01)
Stream Linear 24 24 48 - 24 24
distance (feet
[metersD (7.3) (7.3) (14.6) - (7.3) (7.3)
Permanent impacts to the stream are limited to bridge shading; bridging will not result in
fill or dredging of wetlands/waters of the United States, and encroachment into the
stream will be avoided. Upon completion of construction, temporary impacts associated
with construction activities and temporary alignments will be restored to pre-project
conditions.
Alternate 1 entails construction of temporary alignments and bridges east of the existing
alignment (approximately 0.85 acre (0.34 hectare) of vegetated wetland temporarily
impacted). Alternate 2 entails reconstruction of existing bridges in place (approximately
0.25 acre (0.10 hectare) of vegetated wetlands temporarily impacted). For both
alternatives, replacement of Bridge No. 82 with a corrugated pipe arch will result in
partial filling of an existing drainage slough (see "Stream Characteristics"). This will
constitute a permanent impact to 0.05 acre of vegetated wetlands.
There is little potential that components of the existing bridge may be dropped into
waters of the United States during construction. Therefore, no temporary fill is expected
to result from bridge removal. This project can be classified as Case 3, where there are
no special restrictions other than those outlined in Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters. NCDOT will coordinate with the various resource
agencies during project planning to ensure that all concerns regarding bridge demolition
are resolved.
20

Permits
This project is being processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines. The COE has made available Nationwide Permit
(NWP) No. 23 (61 FR 65874, 65916; December 13, 1996) for CEs due to minimal
impacts expected with bridge construction. DWQ has made available a General 401
Water Quality Certification for NWP NO. 23. However, authorization for jurisdictional
area impacts through use of this permit will require written notice to DWQ. In the event
that NWP No. 23 will not suffice, minor impacts attributed to bridging and associated
approach improvements are expected to qualify under General Bridge Permit 031
issued by the Wilmington COE District. Notification to the Wilmington COE office is
required if this general permit is utilized.
Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not proposed for this project due to the limited nature of
project impacts. However, utilization of BMPs is recommended in an effort to minimize
impacts.
Temporary impacts to floodplains associated with construction activities could be
mitigated by replanting disturbed areas with native wetland species and removal of
temporary fill material upon project completion. Fill or alteration of more than 150 linear
feet (45.7 meters) of stream may require compensatory mitigation in accordance with 15
NCAC 2H .0506(h). A final determination regarding mitigation rests with the COE and '
DWQ.
Protected Species
Federally Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Threatened
due to Similarity of Appearance (T [S/A]), or officially Proposed (P) for such listing are
protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.). The term "Endangered Species" is defined as "any species which is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range", and the term
"Threatened Species" is defined as "any species which is likely to become an
Endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range" (16 U.S.C. 1532). The term "Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance"
is defined as a species which is not "Endangered" or "Threatened", but "closely
21
f I
resembles an Endangered or Threatened species" (16 U.S.C. 1532). Federally
protected species listed for Sampson County (February 26,2001 FWS list) are
presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Federally protected Species listed for Robeson County (February 26, 2001
FWS list).
Common Name Scientific Name Status
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T (S/A)
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii E
American Alligator - American alligator is listed as Threatened based on Similarity in
Appearance to other federal-listed crocodilians; however, there are no other
crocodilians within North Carolina. American alligators can be found in a variety of
freshwater to estuarine aquatic habitats including swamp forests, marshes, large
streams and canals, and ponds and lakes. NHP records indicate that American
alligators have not been documented within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study
corridor; however, areas within the study corridor do provide suitable habitat for the
American alligator. The nearest NHP documented occurrence of this species is
approximately 7 miles (11.3 kilometers) southwest of the study corridor.
T S/A species are not subject to Section 7 consultation and a biological conclusion is
not required.
Red-cockaded Woodpecker - This small woodpecker (7 to 8.5 inches (17.8 to 21.6
centimeters) long) has a black head, prominent white cheek patch, and black-and-white
barred back. Males often have red markings (cockades) behind the eye, but the
cockades may be absent or difficult to see (Potter et al. 1980). Primary habitat consists
of mature to over-mature southern pine forests dominated by loblolly (Pinus taeda),
long-leaf (P. palustris), slash (P. ellioth), and pond (P. serotina) pines (Thompson and
Baker 1971). Nest cavities are constructed in the heartwood of living pines, generally
older than 70 years that have been infected with red-heart disease. Nest cavity trees
tend to occur in clusters, which are referred to as colonies (FWS 1985). The
woodpecker drills holes into the bark around the cavity entrance, resulting in a shiny,
resinous buildup around the entrance that allows for easy detection of active nest trees.
22
Pine flatwoods or pine-dominated savannas that have been maintained by frequent
natural fires serve as ideal nesting and foraging sites for this woodpecker.
Development of a thick understory may result in abandonment of cavity trees.
Plant communities within the study corridor are roadside/disturbed land, Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Forest and Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods. None of these plant
communities provide suitable habitat for red-cockaded woodpecker nesting or foraging
behavior, and the species was not observed during the recent field visit. Red-cockaded
woodpeckers have been documented to occur 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) south of the
study corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NHP records indicate that red-cockaded woodpeckers
have been documented to occur 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometer) south of the study corridor;
however, the study corridor contains no suitable habitat for red-cockaded woodpecker
foraging and nesting. Based on a NHP record search, habitat types within the study
corridor, and observations during the site visit, this project will not affect red-cockaded
woodpecker. NO EFFECT
Michaux's sumac - Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent, deciduous, rhizomatous
shrub, usually less than 2 feet (0.6 meter) high. The alternate, compound leaves
consist of 9 to 13 hairy, round-based, toothed leaflets borne on a hairy rachis that may
be slightly winged (Radford et al. 1968). Small male and female flowers are produced
during June on separate plants; female flowers are produced on terminal, erect clusters,
which later produce small, hairy, red fruits (drupes) in August and September.
Michaux's sumac tends to grow in disturbed areas where competition is reduced by
periodic fire or other disturbances, and may grow along roadside margins or utility right-
of-ways. In the Piedmont, Michaux's sumac appears to prefer clay soil derived from
mafic rocks or sandy soil derived from granite; in the Sandhills, it prefers loamy swales
(Weakley 1993). Michaux's sumac ranges from south Virginia through Georgia in the
inner Coastal Plain and lower Piedmont.
Roadside margins within the study corridor support a roadside/disturbed land plant
community that may provide habitat for Michaux's sumac. However, an evaluation of
roadside and grassland areas indicates that regular maintenance has eliminated any
likelihood of Michaux's sumac occurring there. Furthermore, systematic surveys were
conducted in the study corridor (concentrated in upland portions) during this field
investigation. Although the blooming season for this species has ended, it is likely that
relict flower heads could remain into September and October. No evidence of
Michaux's sumac, or any similar species, was identified. NHP files have no
23
I f
documentation of this species within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor. The
nearest documented occurrence of this species is approximately 2 miles (3.2
kilometers) north of the study corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Portions of the study corridor occur in areas which
contain habitat suitable to Michaux's sumac; however, NHP files have no
documentation of this species within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor, and
a survey conducted during the recent field visit did not find this species. This species is
not expected to be impacted by project development. NO EFFECT
Federal Species of Concern - The February 26, 2001 FWS list also includes a
category of species designated as "Federal species of concern" (FSC). A species with
this designation is one that may or may not be listed in the future (formerly C2 candidate
species or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient
information to support listing). State status is based on listings by Amoroso (1999) and
LeGrand and Hall (1999).

Common Name
Scientific Name Potential
Habitat State
Status*
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis no SC
Rafinesque's big-eared bat** Corynorhinus rafinesquii yes SC (PT)
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus no SR
Carolina gopher frog Rana capito capito no SC
Venus flytrap** Dioneae muscipula no C-SC
Georgia indigo bush** Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana no E
Sandhills milkvetch** Astragalus michauxii no T
Dwarf burhead Echinodorus parvulus yes C
Carolina bogmint Macbridea verna yes T
Bog spicebush Lindera subcoriacea no E
Awned meadowbeauty Rhexia aristosa no T
G - Cnrl.?nnnre..l• T - ?1..,. ??_-_?. nn
_..? ., ,rn?uL IV4, vv - aPvc,iai UU V1n, JR = JIgnITicanuy Kare; C = Candidate;
P = Species has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern
** Has not been observed in Robeson County in the past 20 years
The FSC designation provides no federal protection under the ESA for the species
listed. NHP files have no documentation of FSC listed species within the study corridor
or within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor.
24

State Protected Species
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state list as Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Special Concern (SC), Candidate (C), Significantly Rare (SR), or •
Proposed (P) (Amoroso 1999; LeGrand and Hall 1999) receive limited protection under
the North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North
Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202 et seq.). NHP records indicate that
one state-listed species, southern hognose snake (Heterodon simus) (SR) has been
documented within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor. The southern
hognose snake occurs in sandy woods, pine-oak woods, longleaf and loblolly pines,
scrub oak, and wiregrass habitats (Palmer and Braswell 1995). This species has been
documented to occur along near Richland Swamp approximately 0.8 mile (1.3
kilometers) north of the study corridor, but suitable habitat does not exist within the
study corridor.
VIII. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR
Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their
undertakings (federally-funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and to afford the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on such
undertakings. The project was coordinated with the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) in accordance with the Advisory Council's regulations and
FHWA procedures.
B. Historic Architecture
A field survey of the APE was conducted by Ko and Associates on March 10, 2000. All
structures within the APE were photographed, and on April 28, 2000, Mary Pope Furr,
NCDOT staff architectural historian, reviewed the maps and photographs. On June 1,
2000, representatives of NCDOT, FHWA and the State Historic Preservation Office
reviewed properties in the project's area of potential effect and concluded there are no
properties, including Bridge Nos. 62 and 82, considered eligible for the National
Register and a concurrence form was signed to this effect. A copy of the concurrence
25

form is included in the Appendix.
C. Archaeology
In their September 12, 2000, letter, the SHPO stated "We have conducted a review of
the project and are aware of no archaeological sites within the project. If the
replacement is to be located along the existing alignment, it is unlikely that significant
archaeological resources would be affected and no investigations would be
recommended". Given the limited scope of the project, no effects on archaeological
sites are anticipated.
IX. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact by replacing a potentially
unsafe bridge.
The project is considered a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or
natural environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulations. No
significant change in land use is expected to result from replacement of the bridge.
The studied route does not contain any bicycle accommodations, nor is it a designated
bicycle route; therefore, no bicycle accommodations have been included as part of this
project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not
expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The proposed project has been coordinated with the U.S. Department of Agriculture for
compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) (7 CFR Part 658). There is
no prime, unique, statewide, or local important farmland impacted by this project.
26
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.
The project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the
regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required. 40 CFR
Part 51 is not applicable because the proposed project is located in an attainment area.
The replacement of the existing bridge will not increase or decrease traffic volumes;
therefore, the project's impact on noise and air quality will not be significant. The noise
levels will increase during the construction period, but will only be temporary. This
evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise of Title 23,
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772 and for air quality (1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act) and no additional reports are
required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Division of Waste Management revealed no leaking underground
storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse
environmental effects will result from implementation of the project.
X. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
Agency Coordination
Letters requesting comments and environmental input were sent to the following
agencies:
*US Army Corps of Engineers- Wilmington District
*US Fish and Wildlife Service
*US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service
US Geological Survey
State Clearinghouse
*NC Department of Cultural Resources
NC Department of Public Instruction
*NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
NC Division of Water Quality
NC Natural Heritage Program
27

County Manager, Robeson County
Chairman, Robeson County Commissioners
Director, Robeson County EMS
Sheriff, Robeson County
Local Volunteer Fire Departments
Asterisks (*) indicates agencies from which written comments were received. The
comments are included in the appendix of this report.
Public Involvement
Ko & Associates developed a "start of study" letter describing the study alternates which
was mailed to local officials and agencies. Also a newsletter was developed that was
mailed to local property owners as determined from property tax records. The single
response from a citizen was from Mr. W. D. Reynolds who expressed concern with any
alternate that involved construction on the impoundment side of NC 72. Ko &
Associates responded to Mr. Reynolds and sent him copies of the functional plans for
the study alternates.
28
REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands anc
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS -79/31. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS. 100 pp.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1997. Classifications and Water Quality Standards Assigned
to the Waters of the Lumber River Basin. North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1999. Lumber River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (Draft).
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1985. Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia. 88 pp.
Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,
Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
LeGrand, H. E., S. P. Hall. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of
the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 264
PP.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1997. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Hydric Soils, Robeson County, N.C. Technical Guide, Section II-A-2.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 412 pp.
29
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 408 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishers of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, N.C. 222 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh.
325 pp.
Thompson, R.L. and W.W. Baker. 1971. A survey of red-cockaded woodpeckers nesting
habitat requirements (pp. 170-186). In R.L. Thompson ed., The Ecology and
Management of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker. Tall Timbers Research Station,
Tallahassee, FL.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1978. Soil Survey of Robeson County, North Carolina.
USDA National Cooperative Soil Survey.
Weakley, A. S. 1993. Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas and Virginia. Working Draft of
November 1993. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 575 pp.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
255 pp.
30
41,
BRIDGE,. NOS. 62 & 82,_J
1.0
E i?? rn' , ? ?• ter..-•'?"!, p fj ? ???'a ,? `S' \';Y ? r.,•°^--•
VVV /-
?• - -?
FloNond j.. J ?
B'• ? ?,of /\
mf !? d1z
ti ?Jordans
?\ " ? -? 9?. ??1 r . , it • swop
\? f
-Al
Red
0 N
e coke .
D7 Aaemon e 1
LU i
rt?heri
P.w Ra7rM 30l ;. ?Ilent rf
14 - al - At, i7 ??
'
¦nd, to
fmrmont
0. r
$ rem
904
? ?arne
NORTH CAROLINA IMPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIOHWATS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
!?yr ENVIROMENTAL ANALTSffi BRANCH
^'N1
BRIDGE NOS. 62 & 82
NC 72 OVER RICHLAND SWAMP
ROBESON COUNTY
B-3692
VICINITY MAP
0 1 2 3
GRAPHIC SCALE (MILES) FIGURE I

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
'. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
MfNI`e;Ae!?tj ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 62
OVER RICHLAND SWAMP
ROBESON COUNTY
LOOKING SOUTH ACROSS BRIDGE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
?'" '" 4•? TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
• PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 62
OVER RICBLAND SWAMP
ROBESON COUNTY
B-3692
FIGURE 2B
STRUCTURE PROFILE -SOUTH END
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
j` DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
'. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 82
OVER RICHLAND SWAMP
ROBESON COUNTY
B-3692
FIGURE 2C
i „o, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
o *' DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 82
OVER RICHLAND SWAMP
ROBESON COUNTY
B-3692
FIGURE 2D
STRUCTURE PROFILE - WEST SIDE, SOUTH END
s N a
?• h ?? / ?EOaP ?3 `\ \'r ?f ,pis ? `.
Vi BRIDGE NOS. 62 & 82
2\ j o
°O 2 1v I ? \ ? i
/ r \?? 2A+"'"•.r'?' ? v /F , \?f?r ti,?? off\''? "' ^`\?,? /( / /.._
Urn/!{ l '\ l 6 . N '`j^ ;'.?'r 2 ?` •,
01
Cl swafl"
tons
N I.O ^Y
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTES
Ad S°nn! L . ?•?
O N
lNo.
7 ' NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTNIM OF TRANSPORTATION
n<.m
? i f DMSION OF ffiOHNAYB
?PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
?• ENVIRODI$NTAL ANALTM BRANCH
6• •a ..fo'
BRIDGE NOS. 62 & 82
NC 72 OVER RICHLAND SWAMP
ROBESON COUNTY
B-3692
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTES
0 I 2 3
FIGURE 5
GRAPHIC SCALE (MILES)
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402.1890
NAMYAEKRM February 14, 2001
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. 200100213, 200100214, 200100215, 200100216, 200100227, 200100229,
200100347, 200100348, 200100349, 200100350, 200100351, 200100352, 200100353.
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Reference your letters July 28, 2000, August 15, 2000, October 20, 2000, and
November 15, 2000 regarding our scoping comments on the following proposed bridge
replacement projects:
1. TIP Project B-3698, Bridge No. 15 on NC 50 over Youngs Swamp, Sampson
County, Action ID 200100347.
t 2. TIP Project B-3699, Bridge No. 67 on NC 903 over Coharie Creek, Sampson
County, Action ID 200100348.
3. TIP Project B-3514, Bridge No. 100 on SR 1246 (Butler Island Bridge Road)
over South River, Sampson County, Action ID 200100349.
4. TIP Project B-3654, Bridge Nos. 29 and 53 on NC 55 over Mingo Swamp,
?? , Harnett County, Action ID 200100213.
5. TIP Project B-3655, Bridge No. 59 on SR 1111 over Jumping Run Creek,
Harnett County, Action ID 200100214.
6. TIP Project B-3692, Bridge Nos. 62 and 82 on NC 72 over Richland Swamp,
Robeson County, Action ID 200100229.
7. TIP Project B-3693, Bridge No. 211 on SR 1527 over Raft Swamp, Robeson
County, Action ID 200100350.
8. -TIP Project B-3507, Bridge Nos. 155 and 157 on SR 1303 over Lumber River,
Robeson County, Action ID 200100351.
Q((.tNt 9. TIP Project B-3881, Bridge No. 26 on US 117 and NC 133 over CSX
Transportation, New Hanover County, Action ID 200100227.
10. TIP Project B-3896, Bridge No. 24 on NC 20 over CSX Transportation,
Robeson County, Action ID 200100352.
IF
11. TIP Project B-4139, Bridge No. 106 on SR 1780 over Black River, Harnett
County, Action ID 200100215.
?U?lnSprl 12. TIP Project B-3875, Bridge No. 78 on SR 1456 over Grassy Creek, Moore
County, Action ID 200100216.
?. TIP Project B-3404, Bridge No. 314 on SR 1127 over South Fork Jones Creek,
Anson County, Action ID 200100353.
Based on the information provided in the referenced letters, it appears that each
proposed bridge replacement project may impact jurisdictional wetlands. Department of
the Army (DA) permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of
1977, as amended, will be required for the discharge of excavated or fill material in waters
of the United States or any adjacent wetlands in conjunction with these projects, including
disposal of construction debris. Specific permit requirements will depend on design of the
projects, extent of fill work within the waters of the United States, including wetlands,
construction methods, and other factors.
Although these projects may qualify as a Categorical Exclusion, to qualify for
nationwide permit authorization under Nationwide Permit ##23, 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. Our experience has shown that replacing bridges with culverts often results
in sufficient adverse impacts to consider the work as having more than minimal impacts
on the aquatic environment. Accordingly, the following items need to be addressed in the
project 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. On-site
detours, unless constructed on a spanning structure, can cause permanent wetland impacts
due to sediment consolidation resulting from the on-site detour itself and associated
heavy equipment. Substantial sediment consolidation in wetland systems may in turn
cause fragmentation of the wetland and impair the ecological and hydrologic functions of
the wetland. Thus, on-site detours constructed in wetlands can result in more than
minimal wetland impacts. These types of wetland impacts will be considered as
permanent wetland impacts. Please note that an onsite detour constructed on a spanning
structure can potentially avoid permanent wetland impacts and should be considered
whenever an on-site detour is the recommended action.
2
For proposed projects and associated on-site detours that cause minimal losses of
wetlands, an approved wetland restoration plan will be required prior to issuance of a DA
nationwide or general permit. For proposed projects and associated on-site detours that
cause significant wetland losses, an individual DA permit and a mitigation proposal for
the unavoidable wetland impacts may be required.
In view of our concerns related to onsite detours constructed in wetlands, recent
field inspections were conducted at each of the proposed project sites, except for TIP
Project B-3875, and a cursory determination was made on the potential for sediment
consolidation due to an onsite detour. Based on these inspections, potential for sediment
consolidation in wetlands exists at several of the proposed projects. Therefore, it is
recommended that geotechnical evaluations be conducted at each project site to estimate
the magnitude of sediment consolidation that can occur due to an on-site detour and the
results be provided in the project planning report. Based on our field inspections, we
strongly recommend that geotechnical evaluations be conducted at the following
proposed project sites:
1. TIP Project B-3698, Bridge No. 15 on NC 50 over Youngs Swamp, Sampson
County, Action ID 200100347.
2. TIP Project B-3514, Bridge No. 100 on SR 1246 (Butler Island Bridge Road)
over the South River, Sampson County, Action ID 200100349.
3. TIP Project B-3654, Bridge Nos. 29 and 53 on NC 55 over Mingo Swamp,
Harnett County, Action ID 200100213.
4. TIP Project B-3692, Bridge Nos. 62 and 82 on NC 72 over Richland Swamp,
Robeson County, Action ID 200100229.
5. TIP Project B-3693, Bridge No. 211 on SR 1527 over Raft Swamp, Robeson
County, Action ID 200100350.
6. TIP Project B-3507, Bridge Nos. 155 and 157 on SR 1303 over Lumber River,
Robeson County, Action ID 200100351.
c. Project commitments should include the removal of all temporary fills from
waters and wetlands and "time-of-year" restrictions on in-stream work if recommended
by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission. In addition, if undercutting is necessary for
temporary detours, the undercut material should be stockpiled to be used to restore the
site.
d. All restored areas should be planted with endemic vegetation including trees, if
appropriate.
e. The report should provide an estimate of the linear feet of new impacts to
streams resulting from construction of the project.
C
f. If a bridge is proposed to be replaced with a culvert, NCDOT must demonstrate
that the work will not result in more than minimal impacts on the aquatic environment,
specifically addressing the passage of aquatic life including anadromous fish. In addition,
the report should address the impacts that the culvert would have on recreational
navigation.
g. The report should discuss and recommend bridge demolition methods and shall
include the impacts of bridge demolition and debris removal in addition to the impacts of
constructing the bridge. The report should also incorporate the bridge demolition policy
recommendations pursuant to the NCDOT policy entitled "Bridge Demolition and
Removal in Waters of the United States" dated September 20, 1999.
h. Based on the recent field investigations of the referenced project sites, the'
apparent level of wetland impacts and scope of the referenced projects do not warrant
coordination pursuant to the integrated NEPA/Section 404-merger agreement.
Should you have any questions, please call Mr. David L. Timpy at the Wilmington
Field Office at 910-251-4634.
Sincerely,
41- -
E. David Franklin
NCDOT Team Leader
Regulatory Division
yQ,rPM N? l!`
O 'y
=M(77119'

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Feld Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh. North Carolina 27636.3726
September 28, 2000
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Thank you for your August 15, 2000 request for information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) on the potential environmental impacts of proposed bridge replacements
Robeson County, North Carolina. This report provides scoping information and is provided in
accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (16 U.S.C. 661-
667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-
1543). This report also serves as initial scoping comments to federal and state resource agencies
for use in their permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace the following
bridge structures:
1. B-3692 Bridge Nos. 62 & 82 on NC 72 over Richland Swamp;
2. B-3693 Bridge No. 211 on SR 1527 over Raft Swamp, and
3. B-3507 Bridge Nos. 155 & 157 on SR 1303 over Lumber River.
The following recommendations are provided to assist you in your planning process and to
facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we recommend that proposed
highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors, or
previously developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. Areas
exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed and region should be
e
avoided. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings
and/or occur on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures
that maintain natural water flows and hydraulic regimes without scouring, or impeding fish and
wildlife passage, should be employed. Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced
through wetland areas. Roadway embankments and fill areas should be stabilized by using
appropriate erosion control devices and techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in
sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps of the Red Springs, NW Lumberton, and Maxton
7.5 Minute Quadrangles show wetland resources in the specific work areas. However, while the
NWI maps are useful for providing an overview of a given area, they should not be relied upon in
lieu of a detailed wetland delineation by trained personnel using an acceptable wetland
classification methodology. Therefore, in addition to the above guidance, we recommend that
the environmental documentation for this project include the following in sufficient detail to
facilitate a thorough review of the action.
The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted by
filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory. Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987 Corps o
Engineers Wetlands--Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps).
2. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made to
identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts. Opportunities to
protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation easement, should be
explored at the outset.
The document presents a number of scenarios for replacing each bridge, ranging from in-place to
relocation, with on-site and off-site detours. The Service recommends that each bridge be
replaced on the existing alignment with an off-site detour.
The enclosed list identifies the federally-listed endangered and threatened species, and Federal
Species of Concern (FSC) that are known to occur in Robeson County. The Service recommends
that habitat requirements for the listed species be compared with the available habitats at the
respective project sites. If suitable habitat is present within the action area of the project,
biological surveys for the listed species should be performed. Environmental documentation that
includes survey methodologies, results, and NCDOT's recommendations based on those results,
should be provided to this office for review and comment.
FSC's are those plant and animal species for which the Service remains concerned, but further
biological research and field study are needed to resolve the conservation status of these taxa.
Although FSC's receive no statutory protection under the ESA, we would encourage the NCDOT
to be alert to their potential presence, and to make every reasonable effort to conserve them if
species under state protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Tom
McCartney at 919-856-4520, ext. 32.
Enclosures
cc:
COE, Wilmington, NC (David Timpy)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessy)
NCDNR, Northside, NC (David Cox)
;i,nc rely,
) I ??`
?•// Dr. GarlandV. ardi7e
Ecological Services Supervisor
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:09/28/00:919/856-4520 extension 32:\3brdgsro.bsn

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAINIE
STATUS
substrates with pools, riffles, shallow runs and slackwater areas with large rock outcrops and
side channels and pools with water of good quality with relatively low silt loads.
Vertebrates.
Cape Fear shiner Notropis mekistocholas
Endangered
Invertebrates
Brook floater
Pee Dee crayfish ostracod A/asmidonta varicosa FSC

Atlantic pigtoe Dactylocythere peedeensis FSC

Carolina creekshell Fusconaia masoni
FSC
Villosa vaughaniana FSC
Vascular Plants
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii
Endangered
RICHMOND COUNTY
Vertebrates
Shortnose sturgeon
Bachman's sparrow Acipenser brevirostrum
Endangered

Rafinesque's big-eared bat Aimophila aestivalis
Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) rafines
uii FSC
FSC**
Southern hognose snake q
Heterodon simus FSC*
Robust redhorsc
Red-cockaded woodpecker Moxostroma robustum FSC

Northern pine snake Picoides borealis

Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus
Endangered
FSC
Invertebrates
Arogos skipper Atrytone arogos arogos FSC**
Vascular Plants
Georgia indigo-bush
Sandhills milkvetch Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana FSC*

White wicky Astragalus michauxii FSC

Sandhills bog lily Kalmia cuneata
Lilium iridollae FSC

Bog spicebush
Lindera subcoriacea FSC*
FSC
Rough-leaved loosestrife
Conferva pondweed Lysimachia asperulaefolia Endangered

Michaux's sumac Potamogeton confervoides FSC

Pickering's dawnflower Rhus michauxii
Stylisma pickeringii var. pickeringii Endangered
FSC
Carolina asphodel Tofieldia glabra FSC
Roughleaf yellow-eyed grass Xyris scabrifolia FSC
ROBESON COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis FSC
American alligator
' Alligator mississippiensis T(S/A)
Rafinesque
s big-eared bat Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) rafnesquii FSC
January 15, 1999
Page 38 of 49

COMINION NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS

Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus FSC
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Carolina gopher frog Rana capito capito FSC
Vascular Plants
Georgia indigo-bush
Sandhills milkvetch Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana FSC*

Venus flytrap Astragalus michauxii FSC*

Dwarf burhead Dionaea muscipula FSC

Bog spicebush Echinodorus parvulus FSC

Carolina bogmint Lindera subcoriacea FSC

Awned meadowbeauty Macbridea caroliniana
Rhexia aristosa FSC

Michaux's sumac
Rhus michauxii FSC
Endangered
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
Vascular Plants
Smooth coneflower Echinacea laevigata Endangered
Heller's trefoil Lotus helleri FSC
ROWAN COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
Vascular Plants
Georgia aster Aster georgianus FSC
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
Virginia quillwort Isoetes virginica FSC
Heller's trefoil Lotus helleri FSC
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
Vertebrates
Green salamander Aneides aeneus FSC
Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulea FSC
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum Endangered
Eastern small-footed myotis Myotis leibii FSC
Indiana bat Myotis sodalis Endangered
Southern Appalachian woodrat Neotoma Jloridana haematoreia FSC
Northern pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus FSC
Vascular Plants
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf Hexastylis naniflora Threatened
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata FSC
Carolina saxifrage Saxifraga caroliniana FSC
Divided-leaf ragwort Senecio millefolium FSC
Januarv 15, 1999 Page 39 of 49

U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
.iT I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Date Of Land Evaluation Request
Name of Project /&7-
zJ •??
Z Federal Agency Involved
Proposed Land Use
County And State /O
PgRT <II ?(Tq.be?con7p/etgpf Syr; CSC ?* Da Request Received By S C
i:6 0
,
71 ?-4 oes tha site contain.prime; unique statewide or.-local iMpor2antfarmlandl Yes': No Acres Irrigated v
erage Farm Size
?J9°PAVdvestnot,Jl3plyo;fcv lete,? i
fix by s1s E r t i /17P 'ddr t!;v7>?l ?v81 tsof-thys lormll a ,
d& + f_atttgbte: lrrPd8ti16ovt ?JuisdlCpldri' 4s 1 = fd'i r4rtwuni?l FArc>fa AsUef7ned in FPPA
kkw a.3y?i'i1 {r `7. f l w r-- q.
? err. '?, .+y• .^.t••:1' .a?1:..:?4,.?!„ ;fii'?'s•CJT??? „? <?CfZ'S R':??i ri,`.y?:?r,°l'3 ?xse yr a . - 7rt ?r"+?.'?' -n3 ;741CrSS =; r Z?`Yt ?,
"`+?+l??f,?.and >=valtsa>:iona5ystem sad ? ?, +:x: 'Zgb ? ; s; r? `+' # i .. X96 ?'
m
AfalsOyf. y tSite?Assau(mdrlt.BYyt{teroT Date Land EwaluaLon#iet-- BYSCS
•_ [^• R_ ??1 rY44} ?`j ..tiM?, 1.?1V r?, i'Fkrj ? j?, 4 •.r Y
fill _ ..?« .r • 11n,:3 ,
PART II I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative Site atin
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly Site Site Jf 2_ Site C Site D
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C Total Acres In Site
1 k
P,A?iq,la/1o Dheat,byisC? Z? SS Z: S$
???Yat?ttAdl?ln'6orlfiar?Qp 1?? fa«t,? ? T" *•Tf?"!K rw?l r I?r'•?3t? v7 ti ? i
1? Total ?4ct'esfPEf c ,3 ?n rr.V , ,
RI?Affit! tj@fBtrtT?I>Itd vi r xcr a 'r4?.'?^4 *"? t?7 ??, tE ?x?. Gr a,..a} .. ` ;S ? y ;
IS Total Acres Statewlde`And Local Jmportariffarttiland
Y
?C'fiperceri#ageOfFanrtletrd'l ?t?Gh??,iQt?L'iicel:G?ivt'?ri1f iiBe ,.., ?irt6i1:"? tr.,..,? .
d3: `• Percentage'Of:?armland 1n Govt'dutiidiiif3bnlNiifi.Same DrHigher Relative Viifue
PART, f3'b tie ebn'ipJ 19dby`SC.!J,%and-E4dI a`tion 0?`itericni+ x :r +
Aell®tive-/elue'CfF4 ttitand1T6'.Be•C6riifwidd1S a/ebfOwtoopolft) •.. J
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) {
Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b) Maxi
1. Area In Nonurban Use

2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4. Protection Provided B
S
y
tate And Local Government
5. Distance From Urban Builtu
A
p
rea
6. Distance To Urban Support Ser
i
v
ces
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9. Availabilit
Of Far
S
y
m
upport Services
10. On-Farm investment
s
11. Effects Of Conversion O
F
n
arm Support Services O
12. Com atibilit With E
i
ti
A ,
x
s
ng
gricultural Use
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
J
PART VI I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
l
R
e
ative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100 I i
I
Total Site Assessment (From Part Vl above o
l
l
r a
oca
site assessment) 160
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260
Site Selected: Date Of Selection Was A focal Site Assessment Used?
Yr, a No Lj
Reason Fo! Seiection
See lnstluct,orr an reverse side)

?r
w
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
September 12, 2000
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Developme Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Re: Replacement of Bridge No. 62 and 82 on NC 72 over Richland Swamp,
TIP No. B-3692, Robeson County, ER 01-7326
Thank you for your letter of August 15, 2000, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of historical or architectural
importance located within the planning area. However, since a survey has not been conducted in
over a decade, there may be structures of which we are unaware located within the planning area.
We recommend that an architectural historian with NCDOT identify and evaluate all properties over
fifty years of age within the project area and report the findings to us.
There are no recorded archaeological sites within the proposed project area. If the replacement is to
be located along the existing alignment, it is unlikely that significant archaeological resources would
be affected and no investigations would be recommended. If, however, the replacement is to be in a
new location, please forward a map to this office indicating the location of the new alignment so we
------Inay evaluate the potential effects of the replacement upon archaeological resources.
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, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:kgc
cc: Mary Pope Furr
ADMINISTRATION
ARCHAEOLOGY
RESTORATION
SURVEY & PLANNING
Location
507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] 733-8653
4619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4619 [phone] 715-2671
4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613 [phone] • 715-4801
4618 Mail Service Center. Raleieh NC 77699-4618' 0191 '33-6x45 • 'IS-4801
-Ell
Federal Aid #BRSTP-72(2) TIP #B-3692 Counn!: Robeson
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL
REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Replace Bridge Nos. 62 and 82 on NC 72 over Richland Swamp
On June 1, 2000, representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Reviewed the subject project at
a scoping meeting
Q?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.
Lg' there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on tie historical igformation available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as '(DOS 13 2- are considered not eligible for the National
Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties located within the project's area of potential effect.
2

s
Signed:
Representative, NOOT
?- X
Date
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency
Date
lC
State Historic Preservation Officer
Date
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.

i
..

VOW-
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVAT101

r. Ap'

SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacement Proi?+lY
3693 (Robeson County); and B-3514, B-3698 and B-3 692 and B-
ampson County)
?ECF/
MEMORANDUM: Septembe 19, 2000
TO: Melba McGee rn?
G? r
FROM: David Harrison
If additional land is needed beyond the existing right-of-way, the
environmental assessment should include information on adverse impacts to
Prime or Statewide Important Farmland.
The definition of Prime or Statewide Important Farmland is based on the
soil series and not on its current land use. Areas that are developed or are within
municipal boundaries are exempt from consideration as Prime or Important
Farmland.
For additional information, contact the soils specialists with the Natural
Resources Conservation Service, USDA, Raleigh, NC at [phone].
cc: William D. Gilmore
1614 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1614
PHONE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - SO919-733-2302 FAX [phone]
% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER

j0

0
I
i
O
M
See Sheet 1-A For Index of Sheets
See Sfeat f-B For ConventroialSymbols
L,a
2
\_ \ Q
nn I ?
SITE
SR?
Bridge R2
OFF-SITE D
0
N
00
V
W
0
NCDOT CONTACT: SCOTT BLEVINS, PE
PROJECT ENGINEER
DESIGN SERVICES UNIT
GRAPHIC SCALE
25 0 50
PLANS
25 0 50
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
5 0 10
PROFILE (VERTICAL)
DESIGN DATA
ADT 2001 = 2,000 VPD
ADT 2025 = 4,100 VPD
DHV = 10%
D = 60%
T = 6% '
V = 60 mph
' TTST 3% + DUAL 3%
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
lrNV'W 9TllT9el?Y lr%irl IrWV V- Ir-WTTP A QYl1
ROBESON COUNTY
w=i ma R RY,CIO a er mru
I
N.c B-3692 1
LOCATION: REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NOS. 62 AND 82 AND APPROACHES
OVER RICHI-AND SWAMP ON NC 72
TYPE OF WORK GRADING, PAVING, DRAINAGE, AND STRUCTURE
PROJECT LENGTH
LENGTH OF ROADWAY
F.A. PROJECT BRSTP-72(2)= 0.228 MILES
LENGTH OF STRUCTURE
F.A. PROJECT BRSTP-72(2)= 0.019 MILES
TOTAL LENGTH STATE PROJECT 8.1463201 = 0.247 MILES
Kmley-Hom
-
PLANS PREPARED and Associates, Inc.
?
?
FOR NCDOT BY.• O , "o

n, -me
uigh,Nw6 N.h G
C-11- n516
map S7AMMAD SPECUIC UNS
RIGHT-O&WAY DATE:
MAY S.., 2002
JEFFREY W.MOORE, PE
PROJECT ENGIMM
LETTING DATE
MAY 1$ 2003

HYDRAULICS ENGEVEER DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

PE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
SRMTOW. PE
ROADWAY DESIGN s7A78 DESIGN ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF IRANSPORfAIION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
Pd APPROVED
IIXA7USE DIWSION ADAMUSTRA70R 817E
i -L- NC 72
0'
0
4
EXISTING
GROUND
-L- STA 11+20DO TO STA 13+00.00
-L- STA 17+50.00 TO STA 20+00,00
-L- STA 22+25.00 TO STA 24+25.00
NOTE I: MILL NOTCH TO KEY-IN S958 FROM
-L- STA H+20,00 TO STA 11+70.00
-L- STA 23+75DO TO STA 24+25.00
(SEE DETAIL W2 THIS SHEET)
NOTE 2 SAWCUT EXISTING PAVEMENT TO PROVIDE
Z PAVEMENT WIDENING (MINIMUM)
-L- NC 72
EXISTING
GROUND
N
i
0
PAVEMENT SCHEUILE
Cl 'WP.A'PAQX. IS' ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE TYPE S95B,AT
AN AVERAGE RATE OF M LBSPER SU Ya PER I 'DEPTH.
PROP. VAR DEPTH ASPHALT LVNCRETE SURFACE =RSE TYPE S9-'a AT
C2
AN AVERAGE RATE OF 112 LBS. PER S0. YD PER f DEPTH. TO BE PLACED
IN LAYERS NOT LESS THAN / *1N DEPTH OR GREATER THAN 19IN DEPTH.
Dl PROP. APPROX. 2B ASPHALT CONCRETE INTERMEDIATE COURSE TYPE 1-19DaAT
AN AVERAGE RATE DF 2B5 LBSPER SO. YD. PER FDEPTH.
PROP . VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE INTERMEDIATE COURSE, TYPE 1-19Da AT
DZ
AN AVERAGE RATE OF 114 LBS PER 5l2YAPER -DEPTH TO BE PLACED
IN LAYERS NOT LESS THAN 9/4-OR GREATER THAN 4 DEPTH
El PROP. APPROX. 4 ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE COURSE TYPE aeWB.AT
AN AVERAGE RATE OF 456 LBS. PER sa YD. PER I' DEPTH.
PROP. VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE COURSE TYPE 825DaIT
EZ
AN AVERAGE RATE OF 114 LBS. PER S0. YDL PER F DEPTH TO BE PLACED
IN LAYERS NOT LESS THAN YOR GREATER THAN 5/2'DEPTH.
j 8'AGGREGATE BASE COURSE
T EARTH MATERIAL
U EXISTING PAVEMENT
W VARIABLE DEPTH ASPHALT PAVEMENT (SEE DETAIL WI THIS SHEET)
NOTE: PAVEMENT EDGE SLOPES ARE IVUNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED
Et
a u
Z14 - MINlIAW
J" MINIMUM
DETAIL Wr SHOWING METHOD OF WEDGING
t5" GIN OR END CONSTRUCTION
SEE TYPiCALS
FOR LENGTH
C2 a
e3 t 1 9
REFER
DETAIL wl EN `L -
EXISTING PNfMEA7
MILLED NOTCH TO KEY-Ili SsLw
15" 59.58
DETAIL W2 SHOWING TIE-INS AT PROJECT TERMINI
GRADE TO THIS UNE--------j
TYPICAL SECTION NO.1
TYPICAL SECTION NO.2
-L- STA 13+00.00 TO STA 13+52.00 (BEGIN BRIDGE)
-L- STA 14+52.00 (END BRIDGE) TO STA 17+50.00
-L- STA 20+00.00 TO STA 22+25.00
,0
-Y- SR 1507
GROUND
I T YII.AL ZIM- I I%JN N%J. 3
-Y- STA 10+1359 TO STA 11+05.00
u
2
s
A SURFACE COURSE
?0?
EXISTING
GROUND
REDUCED PAVEMENT SCHEDULE
Cl Issq-w
U EXISTING PAVEMENT
W VARIA9LE DEPTH ASPHALT PAVEMENT
I PLACE IN LNERS NOT TO EXCEED AUOOYABLE
MINIMUM/MAXIMUM OF SURFACE COURSE
DETAIL SHOWING ASPHALT WEARING
SURFACE ON CORED SLAB BRIDGE
OP
0
i
Q N -L- POT St0 24+97110
SL-4
POT 19+93.a4
-L- POT Sto IO+O0m C P010 -L- STA 24+9575
y (1536 LT)
131. -1 -L- POT Sto 11+20.Od: i' -L- POT Sto 24+25.0 m.?v^?'*.
POT 5+00.00 BEGIN STATE PRONE 8-3692 BL-3 END STATE PROJECT B- 692 ';
-L- STA A7FfV92 BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
(lE BL PW4C 9+47.75 PING 14+45.76 j END CON
TOTAL STRUCTIOII xors
?%" LT) TCHANNEL OTAL = 620 CY T /
T = 620 CY TL-2 POT 5+00.00 W. D. REYNOLDS R -L- STA 19+41J9
.?
` ' .
ELEV = 17365' (167r 499 LT)
(STRUCTURE ITEAO 94E r.0. REYNOLDS JR.
BEGIN BRlOd'E \ REMOVE EXISTDA7 BROGE -L- STA 14+49.66 END BRIDGE
-L- STA 13 RSTAUTURE PEYI L579 LT) -L- STA 14+52DO 01 94E 499
? V RETAIN EXISTING DAM REMOVE EXISTING-
BEGIN APPROACk., POND WsEL ' I72.4' END APPROACH SLAB WBRIDGE AND / 2 0612 RCP
BEGIN
DAM SPILLWAY ELEV 172.V ' r. .?
-L- STA 13+40.00 -L- STA 14+64.00 W
/ HEADWALLS i
STD. NO. 838-18
CL PPE STA 21+/42'"-L-
. CONSTRUCT SHMAJ"
M t \
"°? ?l ?'•`?,,. STA 14+64 TO 15+00 LT
CIE
ar tir
I` SPECIAL CUT OITCN ? _ ti _,^?`- _. ?,..:``?_ ly?:.? LL./?? E1,TM IB' t. vor'x
y
{ AM,
SEE SPECIAL DETCUT2DITCH 11
?.
SEE DETAIL
)W TAPER
+55 AIT TAPER
E S r ` ? +
_ _ _ - - - - O
1 E-E-E-E ?E f _ i' , 5 _ -E--E
?
+ ?E --- =r.=_^ _ PE Al E PE Ifl E E-^??E-EiE-Er EN 19'8 E-E :E- E---E _ESE=EE C E
N R9 261,57.0.E I ? . : _._.?---- -----------------? ? ---?_? „ ,:- f. -- -
NI' ' 4'
7z a- S?T $I cRw N F9'2r53.EE GRAI 350 Wn- r
i c E\a l„? +
F4„?
jSy
.; ?!.. / aQ S jpgpVENENTS F'M1r
SPECIAL CUT DITCH
SEE DETAL I
CL B RP RAP
EST IO TONS
EST 22 SY FF
W. D. REYNOLDS R
94E 49 ml PLACE CL IRPRAP-
ON PROP BENCH
O AND SLOPE 16
e.o;s 2 MN ELEV = Wi9S0
i -L- STA /3-
5 SKEW = 97
i
BEG
-L-
3

-? -
E-E-E-E-E-E
P
N
U
/
BOWS
Op OUTLET PROTECTION
CL R FP RAP
to EST I TON
EST 5 SY FT
CONSTRUCT SHOULDER
BE GU
TTER
u
TA 14+664
TO 15+00 RT
S

` PLACE CL NRPRAP ON PROP BENCH
ND SLOPE TO MN ELEY = 16950
?
. ? .;,? A
EST 75 TONS
? EST 80 SY FF
\
?
c
c:

ELEV = N
NAIL SET
-L- STA 13+00 TO 0+65 (RT)
-L- STA 21+75 TO 22+00 CRT)
DETAIL I
SPECIAL CUT DITCH
(Not to Scale) Front
Natural .?t\ DID
Ground d D Min. D =1.0 Ft.
Filter Fabrlc Max. d = 1.0 Ft.
Type of Liner = Gass 5 Rip Rap
-L- AT i7L16?' 52 I .w R '7.21
25' R --
? --
T?
+
-E-E-E-E-`£ -
+ .. I` '
-L- POT Sto 22+56155 =1
-Y- PDT Sto IO+00m
A= 6r-W 27S
wco?s / A
CSWAhr)
W.0.REYNOLDS J.
94E 4%
(D
-L- STA 12+00 TO 0+50 0-T)
-L- STA 22+00 TO 24+00 (RT)
-L- STA 22+50 TO 24+00 0_T)
DETAIL 2
SPECIAL CUT DITCH
(Not to Scale)
Natur 3d tt0f Slope
Ground D ?0
Mln. D = LO Ft.
' SPECIAL
CUT
SEE 1- 1

1 CL B RR RAP
EST 4 TONS ' `.
, K:
lI F EST 9 SY FF
-r- PDT St It
END CONSTRUCTION +
75

? r
W. D. REYNOLDS R
/
?' 94E 499
0
-v- dYr c#- ro?enm
Y
Ce-
SPECIAL CUT DITCH
_ 5 DETAIL 2
I
O
W. D. REYNOLDS JR.
94E 499
CHANNEL EXCAVATION',.
SEE SHEET NO.5 FOR -L- PROFILE
SEE SHEET NQ5 FOR -Y- PROFILE
SEE SHEET NOS. S-ITHRU S- FOR STRUCTURE PLANS
TLEVISION5 PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET!
DATUM DESCRIPTION TRAFFIC DIAGRAM ?m" B-302 4
WW SHEEf NO.
THE IDA LIED QURDpATE STS7EY IEYEIB°[D FO4 THIS PROW 1999 ADAOF T C G?13 ROADWAY DESIGN HYDR ULKS
IS 845ED Of THE SIRE RAIE ODOBOIWATES ESTABI5IED B 0025 rap 1170 N Pp % e+Gne? ENGINEER
NMS FOR M7AAEWI PHIADEIFRS' eJ
WITH WAD as STATE PLME GRID CMWDMFES (F Nc 72 4.013 3?0 and Assoa?ates, Inc.
IORTH11& 3G 159M EASTDI& N4T/103P. O
TIE NV W OJIBDED GRID FACM USED ON THIS FR JELT 3,p Co. oun TO GRm)55mief 600 100 RP.O. BOX 33068
ALEIGH, N.C. 27636--3068 PR$rwr um Y PLANS
AIEIGN.CQ?
TIE ACLYff16 GRID BEARJX AND
LOWED KRTMX MM DBTALF FRY
THIUIE m; TO { STATIOW 1104m is DhV - A12 ° M
#56* F C 14.51E 4.087 DIR - (97X 700 ..
AU LDEAR DTMWM ARE IOCkM MRRLYTAL DISTAWES TTST - 37 SR 1507 (-Y_)
WXZCILWW USED IS MOO 29 DUAL = 3X
EST 75 TONS
\\ ( EST 80 SY FF
TL-5 5-
\?s NAIL SET
DETAIL SHOWING PROPOSED BRIDGE WIDTH
IN RELATION TO PAVEMENT
END BRIDGE
2.00 -L- STA 14+52.00
914 ,
0
0
3 4 _ ..._ +. J-.-tJ -

? • •. _- - - -.. _. __-.
vxo>ECr wffae+a to
sir Ho.
`- 't? - 1 `?-`-? -- ? ,? ,+ -r . ?L? 8-3692 5
'?.i-`_T T _?_`.--r . ! - i W ?. ?" .L- '?ja_-1 1 ?-! -
- ?
+? ',. T _ _'L' ~ _. ? - ? ?y 4--. ?
? R'Y/ $fi&T NG.
220
. k'-
..
-,-
t -
_ -1
.-?
--i
_ _-
IIOIDWAr DESIGN HYDAILUCS
e+cc+ESt

- -
- trv ??
a--
??--

-DR -HYDRAU
arml Assoaaies Inc.
=4 i
RW?F1S P ?fiiE 6F EF
STING
5 WET t?dr
t µ -
P.O. ox s 330ee
P.O. X
27636-3068 PRELINN Y PLANS
?
200 is Sf.7D?E?7 T8,B1 :tom , sttvu ?# 6at i
e
' , -
- wzjyroca I-- t
59
_
"r_?z?a'z - - eu?ac s
t _
190 _ a+os: r ter' + 190
l
. h'+t? t --'a,-?-F- r _L ?-• ' -•` ti-+ 1 =-l?` ?`"?,-, f.: - f+ : ?? r' +- ,j r Y--t' }-r +-f ' '?_ V " ~:- +--+---`7 -

+^?-? i-• "
?' _' i. y
aV
-i?w
Im? `
-F +
4 Y
't F' or- 3tT*
'-I
Tr
_
Jam?
'
?-?'
--__
_
-
F?-
2
-J
oT
180 W - 1 _ - _ fi _6 =? 180
1: -r» ,- 1 - i - '- I mo- W I • .. - _ .(

170 fi ?htaGF s Y _ w ? 170
- Y- W h Gl

160
r
r. r n ,_ x T - ?+. 160
L -L

?-
r•
* +'
'--, 44
-_ia -+
r-
m

At

- 71 :?f
?
-
,
150

-

kr

1

`

r- -

Z &: m

I

+

150
?-, T'?'`? -y}r i --N-

.T ?? _
t ? , ?ABtA ''f
fSTF?CTO

f ?If 4- ?? `+.J'_' 1 -?-'?"?. +?-L.,_? ?`?i. 1 - ` £;'P1FftS?_A'2l•14f 2 -?- t''BfGbY:: ?fl?f7'?'?X',?
-
? 3
?

+-Y
-.?-- ,a
?! 1
_
_ ST 123+75ffX?EtEV _
.,-
140
" '

k

??. -'`

_+?f 140

t+ L t -
F + 28491tI Etft i
11 1 ffrZ?
,
+ it
f
• P
p
130 - : - ?_ _. , ?, W t -" z ., 1 - :1Kks
=r SE£ SHE
i
- -
= L
QR ?-
130
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

h
220
'±-,-.-y is i ?l h't J.y. ? _{ .... ''lTl `? ( µ •?-r •-? ?r ? t' +-I .?1 -?? ?+ ? v-. } -- ?'-' FT?
210.

l 1
200 +
# _ } } W T i 7 ZOO

190
- # ? ? 1 ? ? ?-?? ? 4 --FT? .?-L_._.. -•?- ?'. J-? _ ? -??-r- -t1-t.4- ? Wl _ _ -`_ ? +1- _ - ?.

180 r? r-' h -? 180
? ='+ -` `}-?-'- -i ce * T-?-t?•- -?Wr -1-: r??- -r-+-h-
?-+-
-
?? ? •-w- ?--i, ? ?
t
? -W
y 4 r _?,?? _ ;
?
-?t -- --
-
"
170 r T ,r -iy 170

1 H4-
-J
1

'?
"
F
?

'-
'

:1
?

?

-
•

+
{
..r µ

`?-
r

#
- ,
^
iT '?_
---ti ?--f -- ?
+- .
. 77
-
•---Lr
--.i-i
T
T -'-f'_-r
:-
-. r
r
, } +
160 T 160
r1
Y W- y' µ ? - ?
i 150
150 -

? ?'??. ? r ? ? ..
?
- _'i LRt' ? 7--f?-'?t? Jj?' ?? ?
?..- 1-???-?-y,"_'_ '?-
. T` r j
_ -

140
- - -•_-
?- -r'-t- . +
r
r_ -.?--rr+- ?- ±r
' _ ?
-' -
_
- • ?-..
_
-
'
130
?
. 130
10 11 12

O
J?QB
O